Tramadol and Related Products

Therapeutic Class Overview
Tramadol and Related Products

Therapeutic Class
® ®
· Overview/Summary: Tramadol (Ultram ) and tapentadol (Nucynta ) are both centrally-acting opioid
analgesics that exert their analgesic effects through binding to µ opioid receptors and through the
weak inhibition of norepinephrine reuptake. Tramadol also has an inhibitory effect on serotonin
1,2
reuptake. Tapentadol is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the relief of moderate-
to-severe acute pain, while tramadol is approved for the management of moderate-to-moderately
® ®
severe pain. Extended-release (ER) formulations are available for both tramadol (ConZip , Ryzolt
® ® 3-6
and Ultram ER ) and tapentadol (Nucynta ER ). These products are approved for use in adult
patients with moderate-to-moderately severe chronic pain when a continuous, around-the-clock
opioid analgesic is needed for an extended period of time. In August 2012 tapentadol ER was
approved for the management of neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy in
adults when a continuous, around-the-clock opioid analgesic is needed for an extended period of
6
time. Tapentadol ER should not be used in the treatment of acute or postoperative pain. Tramadol is
®
also available as an orally disintegrating tablet (Rybix ODT ) and in combination with acetaminophen
® 7,8
(Ultracet ). The combination of tramadol/acetaminophen is indicated for the short-term (five days or
8
less) management of acute pain. Tramadol is available generically in immediate-release (IR) and ER
9
formulations, as well as in combination with acetaminophen.
The prescribing information for both tramadol and tapentadol contain warnings regarding the risk of
seizures and serotonin syndrome in patients using concomitant serotonergic drugs; however, the risk
1-8,10
is believed to be higher with tramadol. Both tapentadol products are classified as Schedule II
controlled substance; tramadol is not currently a scheduled agent. Tapentadol ER carries a Black Box
6
Warning regarding the risk of abuse and adverse events associated with its use. Tapentadol may be
associated with lower rates of gastrointestinal adverse events compared to other available opioid
2,6
products. Tramadol is associated with minimal cardiovascular and respiratory side effects when
compared to opioids and appears to possess a low potential for abuse and psychological/physical
dependence when used short term. Cases of abuse and dependence have occurred, particularly in
patients with a history of opioid abuse and those utilizing the tramadol containing products long
11
term.
1-9
Table 1. Current Medications Available in the Class
Generic Food and Drug Administration Dosage Generic
(Trade Name) Approved Indications Form/Strength Availability
Single-Entity Products
Relief of moderate to severe acute pain Tablet:
® 50 mg
Tapentadol (Nucynta ) -
75 mg
100 mg
Management of moderate to moderately Extended-release
severe chronic pain in adults when a tablet:
continuous, around-the-clock opioid 50 mg
analgesic is needed for an extended 100 mg
Tapentadol extended- period of time, management of 150 mg
® -
release (Nucynta ER ) neuropathic pain associated with diabetic 200 mg
peripheral neuropathy in adults when a 250 mg
continuous, around-the-clock opioid
analgesic is needed for an extended
period of time
Tramadol (Rybix Management of moderate to moderately Orally a*
Page 1 of 4
Copyright 2012 • Review Completed on
08/28/2012
Therapeutic Class Overview: tramadol and related products
® ®
ODT , Ultram *) severe pain disintegrating
tablet:
50 mg
Tablet:
50 mg
Management of moderate to moderately Extended-release
severe chronic pain in adults when a capsule:
continuous, around-the-clock opioid 100 mg
analgesic is needed for an extended 150 mg
period of time 200 mg
Tramadol extended-
® 300 mg
release (ConZip , a*
® ®
Ryzolt *, Ultram ER *)
Extended-release
tablet:
100 mg
200 mg
300 mg
Combination Products
Tramadol/acetaminop Short term management (five days or Tablet:
® a*
hen (Ultracet *) less) of acute pain 37.5 mg/325 mg
*Generic available in at least one dosage form or strength.
Evidence-based Medicine
· Several clinical studies have demonstrated the superior analgesic efficacy of tapentadol compared to
12-16
placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe pain. In addition to reducing pain intensity and
providing pain relief, therapy with tapentadol is associated with a shorter time to 50% pain relief, a
longer time to first dose of rescue medication, a decrease in the use of rescue medications and a
13,14,16
greater number of treatment responders compared to placebo.
· The safety and efficacy of tapentadol ER was evaluated in three placebo-controlled and active-
controlled comparator trials against oxycodone controlled-release (CR). Tapentadol significantly
improved pain scale scores, responder rates and quality of life compared to placebo. Although not
directly compared for most endpoints, tapentadol ER demonstrated a similar improvement in
17-
analgesia compared to oxycodone CR while be associated with significantly fewer adverse events.
20
· Treatment with tramadol IR has not consistently been demonstrated to be more effective compared to
21,22
nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).
· Tramadol ER formulations have consistently demonstrated significant improvements in pain scores
23-27
compared to placebo in patients with moderate-to-moderately severe chronic pain.
· In patients with mild low back pain or those who were undergoing minor surgical procedures, short-
term treatment with the combination of tramadol/acetaminophen was significantly more effective
compared to placebo with regard to improvements in pain scores, and provided similar analgesia
28-31
compared to NSAIDs.
Key Points within the Medication Class

· According to Current Clinical Guidelines:
o For the treatment of cancer pain, patients should be started on acetaminophen or an NSAID
and escalated to a “weak opioid” and then to a “strong opioid”, such as morphine if sufficient
32
analgesia is not obtained.
o In general, opioid selection, dosing, and titration should be individualized according to the
patient’s health status, previous exposure to opioids, attainment of therapeutic goals, and
predicted or observed harms. There is insufficient evidence to recommend short-acting
33
versus long-acting opioids, or as needed versus around-the-clock dosing of opioids.
Page 2 of 4
08/28/2012
o Opioid analgesics and tramadol are effective treatments for low back pain in patients with
34
severe, disabling pain that is not controlled with acetaminophen or NSAIDs alone.
o Tramadol may be considered an initial treatment option for patient with osteoarthritis as an
15
alternative to topical capsaicin and topical or oral NSAIDs.
o According to the American Academy of Neurology, tramadol or other opioids should be
16
considered for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy.
· Other Key Facts:
o Tramadol IR and ER formulations are available generically as is the combination with
9
acetaminophen.
® 9
o A tramadol ER formulation, Ryzolt , was discontinued by the manufacturer in June 2012.
o No head-to-head studies are available comparing tramadol and tapentadol for the
management of moderate-to-severe pain.
o Tapentadol ER is the first opioid approved for the management of neuropathic pain
37
associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy.
References
1. Ultram® [package insert]. Raritan (NJ): Janssen Ortho LLC; 2009 Sep.
2. Nucynta® [package insert]. Titusville (NJ): Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2011 Jul.
3. ConZip® [package insert]. Sayerville (NJ): Vertical Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2011 Jun.
4. Ryzolt® [package insert]. Stamford (CT): Purdue Pharma L.P.; 2011 Sep.
5. Ultram® ER [package insert]. Raritan, NJ: Ortho-McNeil; 2009 Jun.
6. Nucynta ER® [package insert]. Titusville (NJ): Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2012 Aug.
7. Rybix ODT® [package insert]. San Diego (CA): Victory Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2010 Aug.
8. Ultracet® [package insert]. Raritan, NJ: Ortho-McNeil; 2011 Jun.
9. Drug Facts and Comparisons 4.0 [database on the Internet]. St. Louis: Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.; 2012 [cited 2012 Aug 28].
Available from: http://online.factsandcomparisons.com.
10. Baumann TJ, Strickland JM, Herndon CM. Chapter 69. Pain Management. In: Talbert RL, DiPiro JT, Matzke GR, Posey LM,
Wells BG, Yee GC, eds. Pharmacotherapy: A Pathophysiologic Approach. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2011.
http://www.accesspharmacy.com.ezproxy.mcphs.edu/content.aspx?aID=7986332. Accessed August 28, 2012
11. Leppert W, Luczak J. The role of tramadol in cancer pain treatment-a review. Support Care Cancer. 2005;13:5-17.
12. Hatrick C, Van Hove I, Stegman JU, Oh C, Upmalis D. Efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol immediate release and oxycodone
HCl immediate release in patients awaiting primary joint replacement surgery for end-stage joint disease: a 10-day, phase III,
randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled study. Clinical Therapeutics. 2009;31(2):260-71.
13. Stegman JU, Weber H, Steup A, Okamoto A, Upmalis D, Daniels S. The efficacy and tolerability of multiple-dose tapentadol
immediate release for the relief of acute pain following orthopedic (bunionectomy) surgery. Current Medical Research and
Opinions. 2008;24(11):3185-96.
14. Daniels SE, Upmalis D, Okamoto A, Lange C, Haeussler J. A randomized, double-blind, phase III study comparing multiple
doses of tapentadol IR, oxycodone IR, and placebo for postoperative (bunionectomy) pain. Current Medical Research and
Opinions. 2009;25(3):765-76.
15. Hale M, Upmalis D, Okamoto A, Lange C, Rauschkolb C. Tolerability of tapentadol immediate release in patients with lower
back pain or osteoarthritis of the hip or knee over 90 days: a randomized, double-blind study. Current Medical Research and
Opinions. 2009;25(5):1095-104.
16. Kleinert R, Lange C, Steup A, Black P, Goldberg J, Desjardins P. Single dose analgesic efficacy of tapentadol in postsurgical
dental pain: the results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Anesth Analg. 2008;107:2048-55.
17. Schwartz S, Etropolski M, Shapiro DY, Okamoto A, Lange R, Haeussler J, et al. Safety and efficacy of tapentadol ER in
patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: results of a randomized-withdrawal, placebo-controlled trial. Curr Med Res
Opin. 2011 Jan;27(1):151-62.
18. Buynak R, Shapiro DY, Okamoto A, Van Hove I, Rauschkolb C, Steup A, et al. Efficacy and safety of tapentadol extended
release for the management of chronic low back pain: results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-
controlled Phase III study. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2010 Aug;11(11):1787-804.
19. Lange B, Kuperwasser B, Okamoto A, Steup A, Häufel T, Ashworth J, et al. Efficacy and safety of tapentadol prolonged
release for chronic osteoarthritis pain and low back pain. Adv Ther. 2010 Jun;27(6):381-99.
20. Afilalo M, Etropolski MS, Kuperwasser B, Kelly K, Okamoto A, Van Hove I, et al. Efficacy and safety of tapentadol extended
release compared to oxycodone controlled release for the management of moderate to severe chronic pain related to
osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled phase III study. Clin Drug Investig.
2010;30(8):489-505.
21. O'Donnell JB, Ekman EF, Spalding WM, Bhadra P, McCabe D, Berger MF. The effectiveness of a weak opioid medication
versus a cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug in treating flare-up of chronic low-back
pain: results from two randomized, double-blind, 6-week studies. J Int Med Res. 2009 Nov-Dec;37(6):1789-802.
22. Courtney MJ, Cabraal D. Tamadol vs. diclofenac for post tonsillectomy analgesia. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.
2001;127:385-8.
Page 3 of 4
08/28/2012
23. Burch F, Fishman R, Messina N, Corser B, Radulescu F, Sarbu A et al. A comparison of the analgesic efficacy of Tramadol
Contramid OAD versus placebo in patients with pain due to osteoarthritis. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2007 Sep;34(3):328-38.
24. Kean WF, Bouchard S, Roderich Gossen E. Women with pain due to osteoarthritis: the efficacy and safety of a once-daily
formulation of tramadol. Pain Med. 2009 Sep;10(6):1001-11.
25. Fishman RL, Kistler CJ, Ellerbusch MT, Aparicio RT, Swami SS, Shirley ME et al. Efficacy and safety of 12 weeks of
osteoarthritic pain therapy with once-daily tramadol (Tramadol Contramid® OAD). J Opioid Manag. 2007 Sep-Oct;3(5):273-80.
26. DeLemos BP, Xiang J, Benson C, Gana TJ, Pascual ML, Rosanna R, et al. Tramadol hydrochloride extended-release once-
daily in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee and/or hip: a double-blind, randomized, dose-ranging trial. Am J Ther. 2011
May;18(3):216-26.
27. Beaulieu AD, et al. A randomized, double-blind, 8-week crossover study of once-daily controlled-release tramadol versus
immediate-release tramadol taken as needed for chronic noncancer pain. Clin Ther. 2007;29:49-60.
28. Ruoff GE, et al. Tramadol/acetaminophen combination tablets for the treatment of chronic lower back pain: A multicenter,
randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled outpatient study. Clin Ter. 2003;25:1123-41.
29. Fricke JR, Karim R, Jordan D, Rosenthal N. A double-blind, single-dose comparison of the analgesic efficacy of
tramadol/acetaminophen combination tablets, hydrocodone/acetaminophen combination tablets, and placebo after oral
surgery. Clin Ther. 2002;24:953-68.
30. Alfano G, Grieco M, Forino A, Meglio G, Pace MC, Iannotti M. Analgesia with paracetamol/tramadol vs. paracetamol/codeine in
one day-surgery: a randomized open study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2011 Feb;15(2):205-10.
31. Mullican WS, Lacy JR. Tramadol/acetaminophen combination tablets and codeine/acetaminophen combination capsules for
the management of chronic pain: A comparative trial. Clin Ther. 2001;23:1429-45.
32. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: adult cancer pain. Fort
Washington (PA): 2012.version 1 [cited 2012 Aug 28]. Available from:
http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/pain.pdf.
33. Chou R, Fanciullo GJ, Fine PG, Adler JA, Ballantyne JC, Davies P, et al. Clinical guidelines for the use of chronic opioid
therapy in chronic noncancer pain. J pain. 2008 Feb;10(2):113-30.
34. Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the
American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Int Med. 2007 Oct 2;147(7):478-91.
35. Hochberg MC, Altman RD, April KT, Benkhalti M, Guyatt G, McGowan J, Towheed T, Welch V, Wells G, Tugwell P; American
College of Rheumatology. American College of Rheumatology 2012 recommendations for the use of nonpharmacologic and
pharmacologic therapies in osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, and knee. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012 Apr;64(4):455-74.
36. Bril V, England J, Franklin GM, Backonja M, Cohen J, Del Toro D, et al. Evidence-based guideline: treatment of painful diabetic
neuropathy: report of the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic
Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Neurology. 2011 May 17:76(20):1758-65.
37. FDA approves Nucynta® ER (tapentadol) extended-release oral tablets for the management of neuropathic pain associated
with diabetic peripheral neuropathy [press release on the Internet]. Raritan (NJ): Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; 2012 Aug 29
[cited 2012 Aug 29]. Available from:
http://www.janssenpharmaceuticalsinc.com/assets/nucyntaer_dpn_press_release_08292012.pdf.
Page 4 of 4
08/28/2012
Therapeutic Class Review
Tramadol and Related Products
Overview/Summary
Pain is defined as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential
1
tissue damage. Moreover, pain is a subjective experience that is unique to the individual and is difficult to
identify or quantify by any observer. The type of pain being experienced is often classified by its
pathophysiologic etiology. Somatic pain results from the activation of pain receptors in cutaneous or deep
tissues (skin, bone, joint or connective tissues) and is generally localized and is described as sharp in
nature. Visceral pain involves internal areas of the body (organs) and may be poorly localized and
described as an aching pain. Neuropathic pain is commonly described by patients as burning or electrical
2
in nature and results from injury or damage to the nervous system. An individual’s reaction or response
to treatment of pain can be highly variable. Pain thresholds are highly individualized among patients and
responses to therapy will vary between persons and may vary within the same patient from day to day.
Pain management is multifaceted and should incorporate both pharmacological and non-pharmacological
measures.
® ®
Tramadol (Ultram ) and tapentadol (Nucynta ) are both centrally-acting opioid analgesics that exert their
analgesic effects through binding to µ opioid receptors and through the weak inhibition of norepinephrine
3,4
reuptake. Tramadol also has an inhibitory effect on serotonin reuptake. Tapentadol is approved by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the relief of moderate-to-severe acute pain, while tramadol is
approved for the management of moderate-to-moderately severe pain. Extended-release (ER)
® ® ®
formulations are available for both tramadol (ConZip , Ryzolt and Ultram ER ) and tapentadol (Nucynta
® 5-8
ER ). These products are approved for use in adult patients with moderate-to-moderately severe
chronic pain when a continuous, around-the-clock opioid analgesic is needed for an extended period of
time. In August 2012 tapentadol ER was approved by the FDA for the management of neuropathic pain
associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy in adults when a continuous, around-the-clock opioid
8
analgesic is needed for an extended period of time. Tapentadol ER should not be used for the treatment
®
of acute or postoperative pain. Tramadol is also available as an orally disintegrating tablet (Rybix ODT )
® 9,10
and in combination with acetaminophen (Ultracet ). The combination of tramadol/acetaminophen is
5
indicated for the short-term (five days or less) management of acute pain. Tramadol is available
generically in immediate-release (IR) and ER formulations as well as in combination with
11 ®
acetaminophen. A tramadol ER formulation, Ryzolt , was discontinued by the manufacturer in June
12
2012.
The prescribing information for both tramadol and tapentadol contain warnings regarding the risk of
seizures and serotonin syndrome in patients using concomitant serotonergic drugs; however, the risk is
2-10
believed to be higher with tramadol. Tapentadol is a Schedule II controlled substance and the ER
8
formulation carries a Black Box Warning regarding the risk of abuse associated with its use. Tapentadol
may be associated with lower rates of gastrointestinal adverse events compared to other available opioid
4,8
products. Tramadol is associated with minimal cardiovascular and respiratory side effects when
compared to opioids and appears to possess a low potential for abuse and psychological/physical
dependence when used short term. Cases of abuse and dependence have occurred, particularly in
13
patients with a history of opioid abuse and those utilizing the tramadol containing products long term.
Current consensus guidelines for the management of low back pain recommend the use of opioids or
tramadol in patients with severe pain that has not responded to treatment with acetaminophen or
14
nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Tramadol may be an initial treatment option along with
15
topical capsaicin and topical or oral NSAIDs for osteoarthritis of the hand, knee or hips. Guidelines
established by the European Federation of Neurological Societies and the American Academy of
Neurology generally recommend the use of tramadol as a second-line therapy for the treatment of various
16,17
polyneuropathies. The specific role immediate- or extended-release tapentadol has not been
Page 1 of 59
08/29/2012
Therapeutic Class Review: tramadol and related products
incorporated into currently available treatment guidelines; however, in most cases no preference is given
to one single opioid over another.
Medications
Table 1. Medications Included Within Class Review

Generic Name (Trade Name) Medication Class Generic Availability
®
Tapentadol (Nucynta ) Synthetic opioid analgesic -
Tapentadol extended-release
® Synthetic opioid analgesic -
(Nucynta ER )
® ®
Tramadol (Rybix ODT , Ultram *) Synthetic opioid analgesic a*
®
Tramadol extended-release (ConZip ,
® ® Synthetic opioid analgesic a*
Ryzolt *, Ultram ER *)
® Synthetic opioid analgesic/non-
Tramadol/acetaminophen (Ultracet *) a*
opioid, non-salicylate analgesic
*Generic available in at least one dosage form or strength.
Indications
3-12
Table 2. Food and Drug Administration-Approved Indications
Management of
Management Neuropathic Short Term
Management Relief of
of Moderate to Pain Management
of Moderate Moderate to
Generic Name Moderately Associated (Five Days
to Moderately Severe
Severe with Diabetic or Less) of
Severe Pain Acute Pain
Chronic Pain Peripheral Acute Pain
Neuropathy
Tapentadol a (ER)* a (ER)* a
Tramadol a a (ER)*
Tramadol/ a
acetaminophen
*In adults when a continuous, around-the-clock opioid analgesic is needed for an extended period of time
Pharmacokinetics
3-12
Table 3. Pharmacokinetics
Bioavailability Absorption Renal Active Serum Half-
Generic Name
(%) (%) Excretion (%) Metabolites Life (hours)
Tapentadol 32 Not reported 99 (IR) None 4 to 5
Tramadol 75 (IR) Not reported 90 Yes, O- 6.3 (IR)
85 to 90 (ER) desmethyl- 7.9 (ER)
tramadol (M1)
Tramadol/ 75/60 to 98 Not reported 90/9 O-desmethyl- 5 to 6/2 to 3
acetaminophen tramadol (M1)
Clinical Trials
The clinical trials demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the tramadol and tapentadol products in their
18-46
respective Food and Drug Administration approved indications are described in Table 4.
Page 2 of 59
08/29/2012
Several clinical studies have demonstrated the superior analgesic efficacy of tapentadol compared to
26,27,30,32,35
placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe pain. In addition to reducing pain intensity and
providing pain relief, therapy with tapentadol is associated with a shorter time to 50% pain relief, a longer
time to first dose of rescue medication, a decrease in the use of rescue medications and a greater
27,30,32
number of treatment responders compared to placebo. In one study of patients who were
candidates for joint replacement surgery, tapentadol significantly reduced pain intensity scores compared
to placebo, and was noninferior to analgesia provided by oxycodone. In addition, the incidence of
gastrointestinal-related adverse events was significantly lower with tapentadol compared to oxycodone
26
(P<0.001). In a short-term (four day) study of postoperative pain in patients who had undergone
bunionectomy, both tapentadol and oxycodone significantly lowered summed pain intensity scores after
three days of treatment compared to placebo (P≤0.05 for all); however, only the tapentadol 100 mg doses
demonstrated statistically significant differences compared to placebo on day four (P=0.0284).
Tapentadol treatment was associated with a reduction in nausea, dizziness, vomiting and constipation
27
compared to oxycodone (P values not reported). Another three month safety study by Hale et al
demonstrated a lower incidence of treatment-related adverse events with tapentadol compared to
35
oxycodone, while also significantly lowering the incidence of withdrawal symptoms (17 vs 29%; P≤0.05).
In a 12-week trial of adults with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee, significant pain relief was achieved with
tapentadol extended-release (ER) compared to placebo (Least Squares Mean (LSM) difference, -0.7;
95% CI, -1.04 to -0.33). Oxycodone controlled-release (CR) reduced the average pain intensity compared
to placebo for the overall maintenance period (LSM difference vs. placebo: -0.3), but was not statistically
significantly lower at week 12 of the maintenance period (LSM of -0.3; P value not reported). More
patients treated with tapentadol ER achieved a ≥30% reduction in average pain intensity at week 12 of
the maintenance period; however, the difference was not statistically significant (43.0 vs 35.9%;
P=0.058). Significantly fewer patients in the oxycodone CR group achieved this improvement compared
to placebo (24.9 vs 35.9%; P=0.002). A higher percentage of patients achieved a ≥50% reduction in
average pain intensity from baseline at week 12 with tapentadol ER compared to placebo (32.0 vs 24.3%;
P=0.027), while significantly fewer oxycodone CR-treated patients achieved this improvement compared
36
to placebo (17.3 vs 24.3% (P=0.023).
Buynak et al evaluated tapentadol ER compared to oxycodone ER and placebo in adults with moderate to
severe lower back pain. The mean change in pain intensity from baseline to week 12 was significantly
greater for tapentadol ER (LSM difference, -0.8; P<0.001) and oxycodone CR (LSM difference, 0.9;
P<0.001) compared to placebo. The mean change in pain intensity from baseline over the entire
maintenance period was -2.8 for the tapentadol ER group and -2.1 for the placebo group (LSM difference,
23
-0.7; P<0.001). Schwartz et al evaluated tapentadol ER over 12 weeks in adults with painful diabetic
peripheral neuropathy. The LSM change in average pain intensity from the start of double-blind treatment
period to week 12 was 1.4 in the placebo group, indicating a worsening in pain intensity, and 0.0 in the
tapentadol ER group, indicating no change in pain intensity (LSM difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.70 to -0.92;
P<0.001). A ≥30% improvement in pain intensity was observed in 53.6% of tapentadol ER-treated
patients and 42.2% of placebo-treated patients (P=0.017). A ≥50% improvement in pain intensity was
18
observed in 37.8% of tapentadol ER-treated patients and 27.6% of placebo-treated patients.
In a pooled analysis of three studies of patients with pain due to OA or nonmalignant lower back pain,
tapentadol was significantly more effective compared to placebo over a three week treatment phase (LSM
difference, -0.6; 95% CI, -0.80 to -0.39; P<0.001) and for the overall 12 week maintenance period (-0.5;
95% CI, -0.73 to -0.34; P<0.001). A similar analgesic effects was reported in patients receiving
oxycodone CR; however, the responder rate was higher with tapentadol ER (P<0.001). Moreover, a
significantly higher proportion of patients receiving tapentadol ER achieved a ≥30% and ≥50%
improvement in pain intensity from baseline compared to oxycodone CR and placebo (P<0.001 for
24
both).
Tramadol has been evaluated in various settings for the management of moderate-to-moderately severe
pain. In patients with symptomatic OA, tramadol (up to 400 mg daily) did not significantly improve the
Page 3 of 59
08/29/2012
mean final pain intensity score compared to placebo when administered over three months (P=0.082);
however, both patient and investigator assessment of treatment favored tramadol over placebo (P=0.038
19
and P=0.001, respectively).
Treatment with tramadol has not consistently been demonstrated to be more effective compared to
nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). In a two studies by O’Donnell et al, a significantly greater
proportion of patients receiving celecoxib 200 mg twice-daily achieved a ≥30% improvement from
baseline in NRS-pain scale scores compared to tramadol 50 mg administered four times daily (63.2 vs
38
49.9%; P<0.001 in study I and 64.1 vs 55.1%; P=0.008 study II). In patients with post-tonsillectomy
pain, there was no statistically significant difference in visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores between
39
tramadol and diclofenac over two weeks of treatment (P=0.66).
Tramadol ER formulations have consistently demonstrated significant improvements in pain scores

21,28,29
compared to placebo in patients with moderate-to-moderately severe chronic pain. In one study,
tramadol ER 300 mg significantly improved patient global assessment scores compared to placebo
(P≤0.05); however, no improvements in WOMAC pain subscale scores were reported for tramadol ER
31
100 mg, 200 mg or 300 mg after 12 weeks of treatment. Compared to tramadol alone, tramadol ER was
associated with a significant reduction in VAS scores in an eight-week crossover study of patients with
46
chronic pain (29.9 vs 36.2; P<0.001).
In a 12-week study comparing tramadol ER to the buprenorphine transdermal patch, the LSM change
from baseline in Box Scale-11 pain score between treatments was -0.17 (95% CI, -0.89 to 0.54; P value
not reported), which was within the non-inferiority margin, demonstrating that buprenorphine was non-
40
inferior to tramadol ER in patients with OA of the hip or knees. In patients undergoing elective hallux
valgus surgery, etoricoxib significantly reduced VAS pain scores compared to tramadol ER when
41
administered for seven days (12.5±8.2 vs 17.3±11.0; P<0.05).
In patients with low back pain (N=318), the combination of tramadol/acetaminophen (APAP) was
significantly more effective compared to placebo with regard to changes in VAS pain scores over three
22
months (44.4 vs 52.3 mm; P=0.015). In a study by Fricke et al comparing tramadol/APAP to
hydrocodone/APAP in patients undergoing molar removal, both treatments provided statistically
significant pain relief compared to placebo (P<0.024); however, the differences were not significantly
25
different from one another during the eight hour evaluation period. In an eight-week study comparing
tramadol/APAP to meloxicam in patients with OA, there was a similar improvement in WOMAC pain
scores between the treatment arms (6.75 vs 6.51, respectively; P value not reported). Similarly, there was
no statistically significant difference in the percentage of patients who reported pain relief with
42
tramadol/APAP compared to meloxicam (68.2 vs 78.7%; P>0.05). Alfano et al reported that
tramadol/APAP was associated with significantly lower visual rating scale pain scores compared to
codeine/APAP (1.40±0.76 vs 2.52±0.86; P<0.001) in patients undergoing surgical procedures; however,
43
the trial was only two days in duration. The results of a four-week trial in patients with low back pain
44
demonstrated similar improvements in pain scores between these two treatments.
Page 4 of 59
08/29/2012
Table 4. Clinical Trials

Study and Drug Study Design and Sample Size End Points Results
Regimen Demographics and Study
Duration
18
Schwartz et al DB, PC, PG, RCT N=395* Primary: Primary:
The change from The LSM change in average pain intensity from the start of double-blind
Tapentadol ER 100 to 12 weeks baseline in average treatment to week 12 was 1.4 in the placebo group, indicating a worsening in
250 mg BID Adults ≥18 years (maintenance pain intensity over pain intensity, and 0.0 in the tapentadol ER group, indicating no change in pain
with Type 1 or 2 phase after a the last week (week- intensity. The LSM difference between tapentadol ER and placebo was -1.3
vs diabetes and DPN 3-week 12) of the (95% CI, -1.70 to -0.92; P<0.001).
for ≥6 months with titration phase) maintenance phase
placebo an: HbA1c ≤11%, Secondary:
≥3-month history of Secondary: The mean changes in average pain intensity scores (on 11-point rating scale)
analgesic use for *A total of Proportion of patients from baseline to week 12 were similar between males and females who
DPN and 588 received with improvements in received tapentadol ER, for those <65 years of age, those >65 years who
dissatisfaction with study drug pain intensity of received tapentadol ER and those who were opioid-naïve and opioid-
Initial treatment with current treatment through OL ≥30% and 50% at experienced.
tapentadol ER 50 mg (opioid daily doses titration week 12, PGIC at
BID for three days then equivalent to <160 phase; a total weeks 2, 6, and 12, From pre-titration to week 12 of maintenance treatment, at least a 30%
titrated to tapentadol mg of oral of 395 were and safety measures improvement in pain intensity was observed in 53.6% of tapentadol ER-treated
ER 100 mg BID for morphine) and an randomized patients and 42.2% of placebo-treated patients (P=0.017).
three days; subsequent average pain to DB phase
titration in 50 mg intensity score of of the study At least a 50% improvement in pain intensity from pre-titration to week 12 was
increments every three ≥5 on an 11-point observed in 37.8% of tapentadol ER-treated patients and 27.6% of placebo-
days (within dose rating scale treated patients.
range of 100 to 250 mg
BID). APAP ≤ 2,000 There was a statistically significant difference in the distribution of responder
mg/day was permitted rates for patients with any degree of improvement (pre-titration to week 12)
during the OL phase, between the tapentadol ER and placebo groups (P=0.032).
except during the last
four days. Of the patients who achieved ≥30% improvement in pain intensity (titration
phase) and were randomized to tapentadol ER treatment, 60.8% maintained ≥
30% improvement through week 12 (maintenance phase); whereas 34.0% of
patients who had not achieve ≥30% improvement in pain intensity (titration
phase) and were randomized to tapentadol ER reached ≥ 30% improvement
from pre-titration by week 12 of the maintenance period.
Of those patients who were randomized to placebo after achieving
Page 5 of 59
Copyright 2012 • Review Completed on 08/29/2012
Duration
≥30%improvement in pain intensity (titration phase), 48.7% maintained ≥ 30%
improvement through the maintenance phase, while only 17.5% of patients who
were randomized to placebo and had not reached ≥30% improvement (titration
phase) achieved ≥30% improvement in pain intensity during the maintenance
phase.
Among patients who achieved ≥50% improvement in pain intensity (titration

phase) and were randomized to treatment with tapentadol ER, 59.1%
maintained ≥ 50% improvement through week 12 (maintenance phase);
whereas 18.0% of patients who had not achieved ≥50% improvement (titration
phase) and were randomized to tapentadol ER reached ≥50% improvement
from pre-titration by week 12 of the maintenance period.
Among patients who were randomized to placebo after achieving ≥ 50%

improvement in pain intensity (titration phase), 36.4% maintained ≥ 50%
improvement through the maintenance phase, while only 16.5% of those
randomized to placebo and had not reached ≥ 50% improvement during
titration reached ≥50% improvement during the maintenance phase.
A total of 64.4% of tapentadol ER-treated patients and 38.4% of placebo-

treated patients reported on the PGIC scale that their overall status was “very
much improved” or “much improved” (P<0.001).
The overall incidence of adverse events (maintenance phase) was 70.9%

among the tapentadol ER group and 51.8% among the placebo group. The
most commonly reported events among the active treatment group were
nausea, anxiety, diarrhea and dizziness.
During the maintenance phase, the overall incidence of adverse events was
similar between males and females, those ages <65 years and >65 years, and
among opioid-naïve and opioid-experienced individuals who received
tapentadol ER.
Treatment-emergent serious adverse events occurred in 1.4% of tapentadol

ER-treated patients in the titration phase and among 5.1% of patients in the
Page 6 of 59
Duration
tapentadol ER-treated patients and 1.6% of placebo-treated patients in the
maintenance phase.
19
Fleishmann et al DB, MC, PC, PG, N=129 Primary: Primary:
RCT Efficacy (as The mean final pain intensity score was not statistically different between
Tramadol up to 400 3 months measured by pain treatment groups (P=0.082). Pain intensity scores improved progressively from
mg/daily Patients aged 35 to intensity, relief, baseline through day 91 for patients in both groups, and the mean final pain
75 with patient and intensity score was 15% lower in the tramadol group (2.10) than in the placebo
vs symptomatic investigator overall group (2.48; P=0.045).
(painful) assessments,
placebo osteoarthritis of the discontinuation, time The mean final pain relief score for tramadol patients was significantly higher
knee for >1 year to failure, and compared to patients receiving placebo (0.43 vs -0.57; P=0.004).
and had used WOMAC OA index
NSAIDs for >3 scores) The patient overall assessment score was significantly higher for tramadol
months compared to placebo (P=0.038). The investigator overall assessment was also
Secondary: significantly more positive for tramadol than for placebo (P=0.001).
Tolerability and
adverse events A total of 26 tramadol-treated patients (41.3%) and 43 placebo patients (65.2%)
discontinued the study due to lack of effect.
Time to failure of effectiveness was substantially shorter for the placebo group
(median=19 days) compared to the tramadol group (median=57 days;
P=0.042).
Patients who received tramadol had significantly better WOMAC scores for pain
(P=0.012), stiffness (P=0.028), and physical function (P=0.033) compared to
patients who received placebo. The mean final overall score was 17.5% lower
in the tramadol group compared to the placebo group (4.16 vs 5.04; P=0.015).
Secondary:
No clinically significant trends in vital signs were noted among tramadol
patients. The most common adverse events were nausea, constipation,
dizziness, pruritus and headache.
Page 7 of 59
Duration
20
Stoop et al DB, PC, RCT N=128 Primary: Primary:
VAS score Tramadol was associated with a statistically significant improvement compared
Tramadol ODT 50 mg Women undergoing Single-dose to placebo in self-reported VAS (difference, -0.91; 95% CI, -1.35 to -0.47) and -
prior to procedure hysterosalpingo- Secondary: 33% (95% CI, -48 to -17) on the relative, scale in favor of tramadol.
graphy with either a Adverse events and
vs metal cannula or investigator assessed Secondary:
balloon catheter pain During the surgical procedure, one patient reported nausea following tramadol
placebo administration, and one patient reported dizziness. No other adverse events
were reported.
There was a significant benefit for tramadol compared to placebo for physician-
perceived VAS pain scores (39% relative reduction; P<0.001).
21
Burch et al DB, MC, OL, RCT N=646 Primary: Primary:
Score on the PI-NRS Patients treated with tramadol ER experienced a statistically significant
Tramadol ER 200 mg Patients 40 to 80 12 weeks after 12 weeks improvement on the PI-NRS from baseline compared to the placebo group (2.9
to 300 mg QD years of age with vs 2.4; P<0.0001) after 12 weeks of treatment.
pain due to OA of Secondary:
vs the knee who were Responders rates, Secondary:
taking NSAIDs, PGIC, CGIC and There was a significantly greater percentage of responders in the tramadol ER
placebo COX-2 inhibitors, safety group compared to placebo irrespective of the magnitude of response (P<0.05
or tramadol on a for all levels of improvement).
regular basis for
OA pain during the The median number of days required for patients to achieve a two-point
previous 30 days, a improvement in PI-NRS scores was similar between the treatment tramadol ER
score of ≥4 on the and placebo treatment groups (14 vs 15 days, respectively). It took more than
11-point PI-NRS at twice as long for placebo-treated patients to achieve a three-point improvement
screening, with an in the PI-NRS score (39 days) compared to those receiving tramadol ER (16
increase of ≥2 days; P<0.0001).
points after
analgesic washout After 12-weeks, 80% of patients who received tramadol ER rated their condition
as “improved” compared to 69% of the patients randomized to placebo
(P=0.0002). Similar results were obtained with the PGIC (P=0.0042).
The most commonly reported adverse events in the active-treatment group

were nausea, constipation, dizziness/vertigo, somnolence, vomiting, and
Page 8 of 59
Duration
headache. During the double-blind phase, 59% of patients receiving tramadol
ER experienced ≥1 adverse event and 10% withdrew because due to an
adverse event. The majority of adverse events reported by patients receiving
tramadol ER were mild or moderate during the double-blind phase (88%).
22
Ruoff et al DB, MC, PC, PG, N=318 Primary: Primary:
RCT PVA score at final The tramadol/APAP group had a significantly lower final mean PVA score
Tramadol 37.5 mg/ 3 months visit compared to the placebo group (P=0.015). The mean final PVA score was 44.4
APAP 325 mg up to Men and non- mm in the tramadol/APAP group and 52.3 mm in the placebo.
eight tablets daily pregnant women Secondary:
age 25 to 75, in Scores on the PRRS, Secondary:
vs general good SF-MPQ, RDQ, SF- The tramadol/APAP group exhibited a significantly higher mean PRRS score
health, ambulatory, 36, discontinuation compared to the placebo group (1.8 vs 1.1; P<0.001).
placebo and with lower due to insufficient
back pain such that pain relief, and The tramadol/APAP group exhibited greater improvement from baseline on
daily medication overall assessments every category of the SF-MPQ compared to the placebo group. The mean
was needed for >3 of medication by change was statistically significant for the sensory component (P=0.011),
months patients and present pain index (P=0.011) and total score (P=0.021).
investigators
In the categorical responder analysis, 54.7% of the tramadol/APAP group had
>30% reduction in PVA scores compared to 39.5% of the placebo group
(P=0.011), and 44.1% of the tramadol/APAP group had >50% reduction in PVA
scores compared to 32.5% of the placebo group (P=0.044).
The tramadol/APAP group had a significantly greater improvement in

bothersome score (RDQ; P=0.027) and total score (RDQ; P=0.023) compared
to the placebo group.
For every subcategory of the SF-36, mean improvements from baseline were
greater in the tramadol/APAP group than in the placebo group. These changes
were statistically significant for the subcategories of role-physical (P=0.005),
bodily pain (P=0.046), role-emotional (P=0.001), mental health (P=0.026),
reported health transition (P=0.038) and mental component summary
(P=0.008).
The overall assessments of study medication by patients (P<0.001) and
Page 9 of 59
Duration
investigators (P=0.002) were significantly more positive for the tramadol/APAP
group than for the placebo group.
The incidence of treatment failure was significantly lower in the tramadol/APAP

group compared to the placebo group (19.3 vs 37.6%; P<0.001).
23
Buynak et al AC, DB, IN, MC, N=981 Primary: Primary:
PC, PRO, RCT Change from Throughout the 12 week maintenance period, average pain intensity scores
Tapentadol ER 100 mg 12 weeks baseline in mean improved in both the tapentadol ER and oxycodone CR groups relative to
BID Patients ≥18 years (maintenanc pain intensity at week placebo.
with a history of e phase after 12 of the
vs non-malignant LBP a 3-week maintenance period The mean change in pain intensity from baseline to week 12 was -2.9 for
for ≥3 months who titration tapentadol ER and -2.1 for placebo (P<0.001).
oxycodone CR 20 mg were dissatisfied phase) Secondary:
BID with their current Change from The mean change in pain intensity from baseline over the entire maintenance
treatment, had a baseline in mean period was -2.8 for tapentadol ER and -2.1 for placebo, corresponding to a LSM
vs placebo baseline pain pain intensity over difference of -0.7 (95% CI, -1.06 to -0.35; P<0.001).
intensity of ≥5 on the entire 12 week
an 11-point rating maintenance period, Secondary:
Initial treatment with scale after proportion of patients The mean pain intensity was also reduced for the oxycodone CR group
tapentadol ER 50 mg washout, and with ≥ 30% and compared to placebo at week 12 (LSM difference, -0.9; 95% CI, -1.24 to -0.49;
BID or oxycodone CR whose previous ≥50% reduction in P<0.001) and over the entire maintenance period (LSM difference, -0.8; 95%
10 mg BID for three opioid daily doses, pain intensity at week CI, -1.16 to -0.46; P<0.001).
days then doses were if applicable, were 12 of maintenance,
increased to tapentadol equivalent to ≤160 PGIC score, BPI Reductions in mean pain intensity were significantly greater with tapentadol ER
ER 100 mg BID or mg of oral survey and SF-36 compared to placebo at week 12 for patients with moderate and severe
oxycodone CR 20mg morphine health survey baseline pain intensity. Significantly greater reductions in mean pain intensity
BID; at three-day with tapentadol ER compared to placebo were also observed for the overall
intervals doses were maintenance period in patients with both moderate baseline pain intensity and
increased in severe baseline pain intensity.
increments of
tapentadol ER 50 mg Reductions in mean pain intensity were also significantly greater at both week
or oxycodone CR 10 12 of the maintenance period and for the overall maintenance period with
mg (max daily doses: oxycodone CR compared to placebo for patients with moderate and severe
tapentadol ER 250 mg baseline pain intensity.
BID or oxycodone CR
Page 10 of 59
Duration
50 mg BID). APAP Tapentadol ER treatment was associated with a significantly higher proportion
≤1,000 mg/day (max of of responders at week 12 compared to placebo (P=0.004). Overall distribution
three consecutive of responders at week 12 in the oxycodone CR group, however, was not
days) was permitted. significantly different from placebo (P=0.090).
A total of 39.7% of patients treated with tapentadol ER compared to 27.1% of

patients treated with placebo experienced a ≥30% improvement in pain
intensity at week 12 compared to baseline (P<0.001).
A total of 27.0% of patients treated with tapentadol ER compared to 18.9% of

patients treated with placebo experienced a ≥50% improvement in pain
intensity at week 12 compared to baseline (P<0.016).
The percentage of patients in the oxycodone CR group with ≥30% improvement

in pain intensity at week 12 compared to baseline was 30.4% (P=0.365) and did
not differ significantly from placebo. The percentage of patients in the
oxycodone CR group with ≥ 50% improvement in pain intensity at week 12
compared to baseline was 23.3% (P=0.174) and did not differ significantly from
placebo.
There was a significant difference in PGIC ratings for both tapentadol ER

(P<0.001) and oxycodone CR (P<0.001) compared to placebo.
Compared to placebo, both tapentadol ER and oxycodone CR showed

significant reductions from baseline to week 12 in the BPI total score, the pain
interference subscale score and the pain subscale score.
The percentage of patients with “any pain today other than everyday kinds of
pain” on the BPI survey at baseline was 88.6, 85.6 and 86.1% for the placebo
group, tapentadol ER group, and oxycodone CR group, respectively.
At week 12, the percentage scores decreased to 80.7% for the placebo group,
69.8% for the tapentadol ER group and 67.3% for the oxycodone CR group.
The percentage of patients who reported “≥50% pain relief during the past
week” was similar for all three treatment groups at baseline for the placebo,
Page 11 of 59
Duration
tapentadol ER, and oxycodone ER groups (23.4, 24.7, and 20.9%,
respectively). These results increased to 59.7, 75.4, and 80.0% among the
placebo, tapentadol ER and placebo groups, respectively at week 12.
The mean changes at week 12 from baseline on the SF-36 survey for four of
eight measures (physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, and vitality)
were significantly improved in the tapentadol ER group compared to the
placebo group.
The mean changes from baseline were significantly improved for role-physical
and bodily pain scores among the oxycodone CR group compared to the
placebo group (P value not reported).
No clinically important changes in laboratory values, vital signs, or

electrocardiogram findings were attributed to treatment. Overall, at least one
adverse event was reported by 59.6, 75.5, and 84.8% of patients in the
placebo, tapentadol ER and oxycodone CR groups, respectively.
The most commonly reported events (reported by >10% in any treatment

group) were nausea, constipation, headache, vomiting, dizziness, pruritus, and
somnolence. The majority were categorized as mild to moderate in intensity
across all treatment groups. In the oxycodone CR group, the incidence of
vomiting, constipation, and pruritus was nearly double incidence in the
tapentadol ER group.
24
Lange et al Pooled analysis of N=2,974 Primary: Primary;
3 AC, DB, DD, MC, Change from Patients treated with tapentadol ER experienced statistically significant
Tapentadol ER 100 mg PC, PG, RCT 15 weeks baseline in 11-point reductions from baseline at both week 12 of the maintenance period (LSM
to 250 mg BID (3 week NRS at week 12 and difference, -0.6; 95% CI, -0.80 to -0.39; P<0.001) and for the overall
Patients with a treatment for the overall maintenance period (-0.5; 95% CI, -0.73 to -0.34; P<0.001).
vs diagnosis of OA and 12 week maintenance period,
knee pain or maintenance responder analyses, Statistically significant reductions from baseline in average pain intensity were
oxycodone CR 20 mg nonmalignant LBP phase) proportion of also observed with oxycodone CR compared to placebo at both week 12 of the
to 50 mg BID for ≥3 months who responders with maintenance period (LSM difference, -0.3; 95% CI, -0.53 to -0.12; P=0.002)
had been taking ≥30% and ≥50% and for the overall maintenance period (LSM difference, -0.3; 95% CI, -0.52 to -
vs analgesics for the reduction in pain 0.14; P<0.001).
Page 12 of 59
Duration
pain condition for intensity at week 12
placebo ≥3 months, and of the maintenance There was a significantly greater responder rate with tapentadol ER compared
were period, PGIC, SF-36 to placebo (P=0.006) and oxycodone CR (P<0.001).
dissatisfied with and EQ-5D
their current More patients treated with tapentadol ER experienced a ≥30% improvement
analgesic therapy Secondary: from baseline in pain intensity at week 12 compared to placebo (41.3 vs 34.8%;
(patients on opioids Not reported P=0.003), while a significantly lower proportion of patients receiving oxycodone
were required to CR achieved this benchmark compared to placebo (27%; P<0.001).
take total daily
dose equivalent to More patients in the tapentadol ER group experienced a ≥50% improvement in
160 mg or less of pain intensity from baseline to week 12 compared to placebo (30.1 vs 23.5%;
oral morphine) and P<0.001); however there was no significant difference between oxycodone CR
an average pain and placebo (20.8%; P=0.153). A significantly higher percentage of patients in
intensity score at the tapentadol ER group achieved ≥30% and ≥50% improvement in pain
baseline of ≥5 on intensity from baseline to week 12 compared to the oxycodone CR group
an 11-point NRS (P<0.001 for both comparisons).
There was a significant difference in the overall distribution of PGIC scores

favoring tapentadol ER and oxycodone CR compared to placebo (P<0.001 for
both comparisons) and favoring tapentadol ER over oxycodone CR (P<0.001).
Patients treated with tapentadol ER experienced statistically significant

improvements in SF-36 scores from baseline compared to oxycodone CR for all
individual domain scores except general health (P≤0.048 for all comparisons),
as well as for the physical component summary (P<0.001) and the mental
component summary (P<0.001).
On the EQ-5D questionnaire, significantly greater improvements from baseline

occurred with tapentadol ER compared to placebo (P<0.001); however, the
difference between oxycodone CR and placebo was not statistically significant
(P=0.867). A significantly greater improvement was observed with tapentadol
ER compared to oxycodone CR (P<0.001).
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea,

dizziness, constipation, headache, somnolence, fatigue, vomiting, dry mouth,
Page 13 of 59
Duration
hyperhidrosis, pruritus, and diarrhea. Gastrointestinal disorders were
significantly less frequent in the tapentadol ER compared to the oxycodone CR
group (42.8 vs 65.6%; P<0.001).
25
Fricke et al AC, DB, PC, PG, N=200 Primary: Primary:
SC Efficacy based on For TOTPAR, SPID, and SPRID, tramadol 75 mg/APAP 650 mg and
Tramadol 37.5 mg/ 8 hours TOTPAR, SPID and hydrocodone/APAP provided statistically superior pain relief during all three
APAP 325 mg Men and women SPRID measures intervals (zero to four hours, four to eight hours and zero to eight hours)
aged 16 to 75 compared to placebo (P<0.024); however, the differences were not significantly
vs experiencing Secondary: different from one another.
moderate or severe Efficacy measured by
tramadol 75 mg/APAP pain within five PAR, PID, and PRID There was a statistically significant dose response for tramadol/APAP
650 mg hours after surgical scores; onset and compared to placebo (two tramadol/APAP tablets >one tablet >placebo) on all
removal of >2 duration of pain relief, three primary efficacy variables during all three time periods (P<0.018 for all)
vs impacted third time to re-medication
molars and with a supplemental Secondary:
hydrocodone 10 associated bone analgesic agent; and The median times to onset of pain relief were 34.0 and 33.3 minutes in the
mg/APAP 650 mg patients’ overall tramadol 75 mg/APAP 650 mg and tramadol 37.5 mg/APAP 325 mg groups,
assessment of respectively, and 25.4 minutes in the hydrocodone/APAP group (P<0.001
vs medication compared to placebo).
placebo There was no significant difference between tramadol 75 mg/APAP 650 mg and
hydrocodone/APAP in terms of duration of pain relief as measured by the areas
under the curve for PAR, PID, and PRID over the second half of the study (four
to eight hours). Both treatments had significantly longer duration of activity than
placebo (TOTPAR; P<0.018; SPID; P<0.024; SPRID; P<0.019).
Fewer patients required supplemental analgesic medication during the eight-

hour observation period in the tramadol 75 mg/APAP 650 mg (78%) and
hydrocodone/APAP (84%) groups compared to the tramadol 37.5 mg/ APAP
325 mg (94%) and placebo (94%) groups.
The median time to remedication with a supplemental analgesic was shortest in

the placebo group (78.5 minutes), followed by tramadol 37.5 mg/APAP 325 mg
(113.0 minutes), tramadol 75 mg/APAP 650 mg (169.0 minutes), and
hydrocodone/APAP (204.0) minutes. The time to remedication was significantly
Page 14 of 59
Duration
longer for all active treatments compared to placebo (tramadol 75 mg/APAP
650 mg and hydrocodone/APAP; P<0.001; tramadol 37.5 mg/APAP 325 mg;
P=0.036).
Patients’ mean overall assessment of study medication was statistically

superior in all active-treatment groups compared to placebo (P<0.001).
26
Hartrick et al AC, DB, PC, RCT N=674 Primary: Primary:
5-day SPID Both tapentadol treatment groups had a significant reduction in pain intensity
Tapentadol 50 mg Patients 18 to 80 15 days compared to placebo (both P<0.0001).
every four to six hours years of age who Secondary:
were candidates for Reductions in pain Secondary:
vs primary joint intensity, reductions Both tapentadol treatment groups had significant reductions in pain intensity,
replacement in pain relief, safety, with increasing two- and 10-day SPID values (all P<0.001). Significant
tapentadol 75 mg every surgery as a result and tolerability reductions in pain intensity were also reflected in two-, five- and 10-day
four to six hours of end-stage TOTPAR and SPRID compared to placebo (all P<0.001).
degenerative joint
vs disease, requiring A significant reduction in pain intensity was also seen in the oxycodone group
daily doses of compared to placebo (all comparisons, P<0.001).
oxycodone 10 mg analgesics,
every four to six hours reporting a mean Overall pain relief status was rated as “very much improved” or “much
pain intensity score improved” by 49% and 42% of tapentadol 50 mg and 75 mg groups (P<0.001
vs ≥5 on an 11-point for both compared to placebo).
NRS over three
placebo days Both tapentadol 50 mg and 75 mg provided analgesic efficacy that was
noninferior to that of oxycodone.
The incidence of selected gastrointestinal adverse events was significantly

lower for both doses of tapentadol compared to oxycodone (nominal P<0.001
for all events). Specifically, the OR for the incidence of the composite of nausea
and/or vomiting for tapentadol 50 mg compared to oxycodone was 0.21 (95%
CI, 0.128 to 0.339), and the OR for the incidence of constipation was 0.13 (95%
CI, 0.057 to 0.302). For tapentadol 75 mg, the OR vs oxycodone was 0.32 for
the composite of nausea/vomiting (95% CI, 0.204 to 0.501) and 0.20 for
constipation (95% CI, 0.098 to 0.398).
Page 15 of 59
Duration
Rates of treatment discontinuation were 18, 26, 35 and 10% in the tapentadol
50 mg, tapentadol 75 mg, oxycodone, and placebo groups. A post hoc analysis
found a significant difference in the percentage of patients who discontinued
treatment between the tapentadol 50 mg group and the oxycodone group
(P<0.001); rates of discontinuation did not differ significantly between the
tapentadol 75 mg and oxycodone groups (P value not reported).
Gastrointestinal and central nervous adverse events were the primary reason
for study discontinuation.
27
Stegmann et al DB, MC, PC, PG, N=269 Primary: Primary:
RCT SPI-24 on evaluation Mean (SD) SPI-24 values on evaluation day three were significantly lower for
Tapentadol 50 mg 4 days day 3 tapentadol (50 mg, 33.6 [19.7]; P=0.0133; 100 mg, 29.2 [15.2]; P=0.0001) and
every four to six hours Patients 18 to 65 oxycodone (35.7 [17.2]; P=0.0365) compared to placebo (41.9 [17.7]).
years of age who Secondary:
vs underwent a SPI-24 on evaluation Secondary:
unilateral first days 2 and 4 (VRS), Mean (SD) SPI-24 values on evaluation day two were significantly lower for
tapentadol 100 mg metatarsal SPI-24 on evaluation tapentadol (50 mg, 41.2 [16.1]; P<0.0001; 100 mg, 36.9 [15.6]; P<0.0001)
every four to six hours bunionectomy with days 2, 3, and 4 compared to placebo. On evaluation day four, only the tapentadol 100 mg
osteotomy, with (NRS), TOTPAR-24 group showed significance compared to placebo (23.4 [15.2]; P=0.0284).
vs postoperative pain on evaluation days 2, Oxycodone was associated with significantly lower SPI-24 (VRS) scores
of ≥4 on an 11- 3, and 4, time to compared to placebo on evaluation day two only (P<0.0001).
oxycodone 10 mg point NRS, and an confirmed perceptible
every four to six hours increase in pain of pain relief, time to Tapentadol 50 mg and 100 mg had significantly lower mean SPI-24 scores on
≥1 on the 11-point 50% pain relief, time evaluation days two (P<0.001 for both), three (P=0.0041 and P<0.0001,
vs NRS within nine to first dose of rescue respectively), and four (P=0.0078 and P=0.0109, respectively) compared to
hours after regional medication, and placebo. Similar results were seen with oxycodone (P<0.0001, P=0.0075, and
placebo anesthesia was patient global P=0.0062 compared placebo for all measures).
stopped on the first assessment of study
postoperative day medication Tapentadol 100 mg had significantly higher TOTPAR-24 scores on evaluation
days two, three, and four compared to placebo (P<0.0001, P=0.0009,
P=0.0103, respectively). Tapentadol 50 mg was significant compared to
placebo only on evaluation day two (P<0.0001). Similar to tapentadol 50 mg,
oxycodone was only significant compared to placebo on evaluation day two
(P=0.0021).
The median time to confirmed perceptible pain relief was longer for placebo-
Page 16 of 59
Duration
treated patients compared to all tapentadol and oxycodone groups. In addition,
the median time to 50% pain relief was shorter in all of the active treatment
groups compared to placebo with a significant difference for tapentadol 100 mg
(P=0.0015) and oxycodone (P=0.0216).
The median times to first dose of rescue medication were significantly longer in
the tapentadol 50 mg, 100 mg and oxycodone groups compared to placebo
(P<0.0001 for all).
The distribution of responses (“good”, “very good”, or “excellent”) on the global

evaluation for tapentadol 50 mg and 100 mg was significantly different
compared to placebo on evaluation days three, four, five, and at the post-
treatment follow-up day (P≤0.05 for all).
While providing similar analgesic efficacy, tapentadol 50 mg, when compared to

oxycodone, was associated with lower rates of nausea (46.3 vs 71.6%),
dizziness (32.8 vs 56.7%), vomiting (16.4 vs 38.8%), and constipation (6.0 vs
17.9%), and a similar rate of somnolence (28.4 vs 26.9%; P values not
reported).
28
Kean et al 2 DB, DD, MC, PC, N=685 Primary: Primary:
PG, RCT Percent change in The WOMAC pain scores from baseline to week 12 improved by an average of
Tramadol ER 100 mg 12 weeks WOMAC pain and 58.8% in the 100 mg tramadol ER group (P=0.018), 53.0% in the 200 mg group
QD Subanalysis of physical function (P=0.175) and 58.9% in the 300 mg group (P=0.023) compared to 45.2% in the
women aged 40 to subscales and placebo group.
vs 75 years with patient global rating
moderate-to-severe of pain The corresponding WOMAC physical function scores improved by a mean of
tramadol ER 200 mg pain associated 56.9% (P=0.009), 54.0% (P=0.034) and 53.4% (P=0.043) in the tramadol ER
QD with OA of the knee Secondary: 100 mg, 200 mg and 300 mg groups compared to 41.9% in the placebo group.
and a WOMAC Percent change in
vs pain subscale and WOMAC pain and At 12 weeks, 62 of 70 women (88.6%; P=0.059) in the 100 mg group, 62 of 71
VAS score of physical function women (87.3%; P=0.004) in the 200 mg group, and 55 of 63 women (87.3%;
tramadol ER 300 mg above 150 mm at subscales at each P<0.0001) in the 300 mg group rated their overall pain relief as “effective” or
QD baseline visit “very effective” compared to 134 of 177 women (75.7%) randomized to
placebo.
Page 17 of 59
Duration
vs Secondary:
The mean WOMAC physical function scores for tramadol ER 100 mg, 200 mg
placebo and 300 mg doses showed statistically significant improvement with respect to
placebo at all measurement periods of the study (P<0.05 for all comparisons).
Fishman et al DB, MC, PC, PG, N=552 Primary: Primary:
29
(abstract) RCT Patient Global Rating There were statistically significant differences compared to placebo with regard
12 weeks of Pain Relief, to scores for Patient Global Rating of Pain Relief in the 200 mg and 300 mg
Tramadol ER 100 mg Patients with WOMAC pain and tramadol ER treatment groups (P≤0.001).
QD moderate to severe functioning
pain due to OA of subscales, Treatment was rated as “effective” or “very effective” by 75% and 80% of
vs the knee responders to patients receiving tramadol ER 200 mg and 300 mg, respectively.
treatment and
tramadol ER 200 mg adverse events There was a statistically significant improvement in WOMAC scores with
QD tramadol ER 300 mg (46%; P=0.016) and 200 mg (43%; P=0.05) compared to
Secondary: placebo (32%).
vs Not reported
There was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of treatment
tramadol ER 300 mg responders (patients who achieved a ≥30% improvement in their baseline
QD WOMAC pain score) in the tramadol ER 200 mg group (65%; P=0.0095) and
300 mg (65%; P=0.0104) compared to placebo (50%).
vs The most commonly reported adverse events were nausea, dizziness/vertigo,

vomiting, somnolence, and constipation. Adverse events were reported as mild
placebo to moderate in intensity if 87% of patients.
30
Daniels et al AC, DB, MC, PC, N=600 Primary: Primary:
PG, RCT SPID-48 All tapentadol groups showed a significant reduction in SPID-48 compared to
Tapentadol 50 mg, 72 hours placebo (all P<0.001) and increasing levels of pain relief were associated with
frequency not specified Patients 18 to 80 Secondary: higher doses of tapentadol.
years of age SPID-12, SPID-24,
vs experiencing a pain SPID-72, responder In addition, the mean SPID-48 value for oxycodone was significantly different
intensity of ≥4 on rates, TOTPAR, from placebo (nominal P<0.001).
tapentadol 75 mg, an 11-point NRS SPRID over the first
frequency not specified following the 12, 24, 48, and 72 Secondary:
cessation of hours of treatment, Pain intensity reductions were demonstrated based on SPID over 12, 24 and 72
vs postoperative time to first rescue hours. Over each of these time periods, treatment with tapentadol resulted in
Page 18 of 59
Duration
analgesia following medication, and increased efficacy compared to placebo (P<0.001 for all).
tapentadol 100 mg, bunionectomy patient global
frequency not specified impression of change A minimum of 50.0% reduction in pain intensity at 48 hours was shown by 30.0,
58.0, 56.7, 70.3 and 72.8% of the placebo, tapentadol 50 mg, tapentadol 75
vs mg, tapentadol 100 mg and oxycodone groups (all nominal P<0.001 compared
to placebo).
oxycodone 15 mg,
frequency not specified Based on the TOTPAR scores over each time interval, pain relief was
significantly greater in all of the tapentadol and oxycodone groups compared to
vs placebo (P<0.001 for all). Similar results were seen with SPRID scores
compared to placebo (P<0.001 for all).
placebo
The time to first rescue medication was significantly shorter for the placebo
groups compared to all tapentadol treatment groups (P<0.001 for all) and
oxycodone (nominal P<0.001). The percentage of patients who took rescue
medications was highest in the placebo group (49%). A dose-response trend
(19, 14 and 10%) of decreasing rescue medication with increased dose was
noted in the tapentadol treatment groups (50 mg, 75 mg and 100 mg).
The percentage of patients who rated their overall status with the two highest
distinctions, “much improved” or “very much improved”, was higher in the
tapentadol and oxycodone groups compared to placebo (P values not
reported).
DeLamos et al DB, MC, PC, RCT N=1,001 Primary: Primary:
31
(abstract) WOMAC pain Patients receiving tramadol ER 200 mg or 100 mg did not achieve WOMAC
Adults with knee 12 weeks subscale, WOMAC scores that were significantly different compared to placebo.
Tramadol ER 100 mg and/or hip physical function
QD osteoarthritis and subscale scores and Tramadol ER 300 mg significantly improved patient global assessment scores
baseline pain patient global compared to placebo (P≤0.05), but WOMAC pain or physical function
vs intensity of ≥40 on assessment of subscales were not significantly different between treatments. Tramadol ER
a 100-mm VAS disease 200 and 100 mg were not significantly different from placebo with regard to
tramadol ER 200 mg WOMAC subscales.
QD Secondary:
Not reported Daily diary arthritis pain intensity scores improved significantly for tramadol ER
vs 300 and 200 mg compared to placebo.
Page 19 of 59
Duration
tramadol ER 300 mg WOMAC joint stiffness subscale, physician's global assessment, arthritis pain
QD intensity in index and nonindex joints, and overall sleep quality scores improved
significantly for tramadol ER 300 mg compared to placebo over 12 weeks.
vs Significant differences in efficacy between celecoxib and placebo validated the

model sensitivity.
celecoxib 200 mg QD
Adverse events were more common with tramadol ER compared to placebo
vs with regard to gastrointestinal events (nausea, constipation, diarrhea) and
central nervous (dizziness, headache).
placebo
32
Kleinert et al AC, DB, MC, PC, N=400 Primary: Primary:
Phase II, RCT Mean TOTPAR-8 Mean TOTPAR-8 scores were significantly improved compared to placebo for
Tapentadol 25 mg, 8 hours tapentadol 75 mg, 100 mg and 200 mg (all P≤0.05). Similar results were also
single dose Patients 18 to 45 Secondary: observed with morphine sulfate (P≤0.05 vs placebo). In addition, TOTPAR-8
years of age Mean TOTPAR-4, scores increased with tapentadol dose. Mean TOTPAR-8 scores for tapentadol
vs undergoing PID, and onset of 75 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg were 9.7, 11.6, and 15.3, respectively. Mean
mandibular third analgesia TOTPAR-8 scores for morphine sulfate and placebo were 13.8, and 4.7,
tapentadol 50 mg, molar extraction respectively
single dose with bone removal
due to impaction, Secondary:
vs experiencing Mean TOTPAR-4 scores increased with increasing tapentadol dose, and mean
“moderate” to TOTPAR-4 scores were higher for all tapentadol doses >50 mg, morphine
tapentadol 75 mg, “severe” pain within sulfate 60 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg compared to placebo (P<0.05 for all).
single dose six hours
postsurgery All efficacy variables for tapentadol 100 mg and 200 mg consistently showed
vs greater analgesia compared to placebo (P<0.05).
tapentadol 100 mg, In the tapentadol 75 mg, 100 mg and 200 mg groups, mean PID scores
single dose increased from baseline until approximately two hours, then decreased
gradually. The increases in mean PID were more rapid for tapentadol 200 mg
vs compared to placebo, morphine sulfate 60 mg, and the other tapentadol doses
(P values not reported).
tapentadol 200 mg,
Page 20 of 59
Duration
single dose All time-to-event variables were significantly shorter for tapentadol 75 mg, 100
mg, and 200 mg compared to placebo (P<0.05).
vs
morphine sulfate 60
mg, single dose
vs
ibuprofen 400 mg,

single dose
vs
placebo
33
Steigerwald et al MC, OL N=208 Primary: Primary:
Change from The mean change in pain intensity score from baseline to week six was -2.8
Tapentadol ER 50 mg Patients ≥18 years 12 weeks baseline to week six with tapentadol ER treatment (P<0.0001).
to 250 mg BID (titrated of age with OA of in NRS-3
each week to achieve the knee for ≥3 Secondary:
≥1 point decrease in months who had Secondary: Statistically significant improvements in pain intensity scores from baseline
pain intensity score) been receiving Change in NRS-3 at occurred at week six (-3.2; P<0.0001), week eight (-3.5; P<0.0001) and week
WHO Step I or II 6, 8 and 12 weeks, , 12 (-3.9; P<0.0001).
analgesic treatment PGIC, CGIC, EQ-5D,
for ≥2 weeks and SF-36, HADS and By week six, 76.1% of patients reported “excellent”, “very good”, or “good”
Patients were permitted current pain adverse events satisfaction with treatment. At week 12, the percentage of patients reporting
to take tapentadol IR requiring WHO “excellent”, “very good”, or “good” satisfaction with treatment was 83.5%.
50 mg (BID or less Step III analgesic Overall, patient satisfaction with treatment improved from baseline for 81.9% of
frequently; ≥4 hours with an average patients at week six and for 86.8% of patients at week 12.
apart) throughout the NRS-3 of ≥5 on 11
12-week treatment point scale, or ≥6 if A rating of “very much improved”, “much improved” or “minimally improved” was
period; the maximum no medications reported by 84.1% of patients at week six and 92.3% of patients at week 12 on
total daily dose of were being used at the PGIC and by 86.2% of investigators at week six and 92.3% of investigators
tapentadol (ER and IR) baseline at week 12 on the CGIC.
was not allowed to
Page 21 of 59
Duration
exceed 500 mg. Treatment with tapentadol ER was associated with statistically significant
improvements in the mean EQ-5D health status at week six and week 12
compared to baseline (P<0.0001).
Tapentadol ER was associated with significant improvements in SF-36 domain

scores at week six and week 12 compared to baseline values (P≤0.0002 for all
comparisons).
The mean HAD anxiety score significantly decreased by week six (P=0.0002),
week eight (P<0.0001), and week 12 (P=0.0001) of treatment. The mean HAD
depression score decreased significantly at week six (P<0.0001), week eight
(P<0.0001) and week 12 (P<0.0001).
No significant changes were observed in any standard clinical laboratory

parameters or vital sign measures from screening or baseline to the end of
tapentadol treatment. Overall, 84.7% of patients reported at least one
treatment-related adverse event. The most commonly reported treatment-
related adverse events were nausea (21.0%), dizziness (17.6%), headache
(16.5%), dry mouth (15.3%), fatigue (12.5%), constipation (11.4%), diarrhea
(11.4%), nasopharyngitis (11.4%), somnolence (10.2%), vomiting (6.3%), upper
abdominal pain (5.1%), hyperhidrosis (5.1%), and pruritus (5.1%). The intensity
of these adverse events were considered to be mild (51.3%) or moderate
(42.2%). Only 6.1% were considered to be severe.
34
Steigerwald et al MC, OL N=224 Primary: Primary:
Change from The mean pain intensity score decreased from 7.5 at baseline to 4.1 at week
Tapentadol ER 50 mg Patients ≥40 years 12 weeks baseline to week six six (mean difference, -3.4; P<0.0001).
to 250 mg BID (titrated of age with OA of in NRS-3
each week to achieve the knee for ≥3 Secondary:
≥1 point decrease in months who had Secondary: In the overall population, mean pain intensity scores improved significantly from
pain intensity score) been receiving Change in NRS-3 at baseline to week six (-3.8; P<0.0001), week eight (-4.2; P<0.0001) and week 12
WHO Step I or II 6, 8 and 12 weeks, (−4.4; P<0.0001).
analgesic treatment responder rates,
for ≥2 weeks and PGIC, WOMAC The percentage of patients with a decrease in average pain intensity from
Patients were permitted current pain scores, EQ-5D, SF- baseline of ≥1 point was 96.9% at week six (P<0.0001).
to take tapentadol IR requiring WHO 36, HAD score and
Page 22 of 59
Duration
50 mg (BID or less Step III analgesic adverse events The percentage of patients with a decrease in average pain intensity from
frequently; ≥4 hours with an average baseline of ≥1 point and an improvement in patient-rated satisfaction with
apart) throughout the NRS-3 ≥5 on 11 treatment [5-point VRS] of ≥1 category) was 88.8% at week six (P<0.0001).
12-week treatment point scale, or ≥6 if
period; the maximum no medications On the PGIC, a rating of “very much improved” or “much improved” was
total daily dose of were being used at reported by 9.4% of patients at week one, 55.6% of patients at week six and
tapentadol (ER plus IR) baseline 69.6% of patients at week 12.
was not allowed to
exceed 500 mg daily. Tapentadol ER treatment was associated with statistically significant
improvements in WOMAC osteoarthritis index pain, stiffness, and physical
function subscale scores and the WOMAC global score at all time points
evaluated (P<0.0001 for all comparisons).
Significant improvements from baseline in the mean EQ-5D health status index
score occurred at weeks 6, 8 and 12. The mean EQ-5D health status index
score was 0.42 at baseline and increased to 0.66 by week six, 0.67 by week
eight and 0.69 by week 12 (P<0.0001 for all comparisons).
There were statistically significant improvements from baseline in the mean SF-
36 physical and mental component summary scores at weeks six and 12 (P<
0.005 for both).
At weeks 6, 8 and 12, HAD scores for depression and anxiety were significantly
lower following treatment with tapentadol ER compared to baseline values
(P<0.0001 for all).
No clinically relevant changes were observed with regard to vital sign

measures, laboratory values, or physical examination findings. In the safety
population, 71.0% of patients reported a treatment-related adverse event. The
most common treatment-related adverse events were nausea (13%),
constipation (10.5%), dizziness (12%) and dry mouth (10%). The majority of
treatment-related adverse events (95.7%) were considered to be mild to
moderate in intensity.
35
Hale et al AC, DB, MC, PG, N=849 Primary: Primary:
RCT Adverse events, A smaller proportion of patients treated with tapentadol experienced treatment-
Page 23 of 59
Duration
Tapentadol 50 mg or 3 months tolerability, and emergent adverse events compared to those receiving oxycodone (76.3 vs
100 mg every four to Patients ≥18 years withdrawal symptoms 82.9%; P value not reported). Gastrointestinal, nervous system, and skin
six hours as needed; of age with a adverse events were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events
maximum total daily clinical diagnosis Secondary: reported by at least 5.0% patients.
dose of 600 mg and a ≥3 month Efficacy
history of lower Patients in the tapentadol group experienced less nausea (10.3 vs 21.8%) and
vs back pain of non- vomiting (3.5 vs 12.9%) compared to oxycodone on day two (P values not
malignant origin or reported). After more than three weeks, the incidences of vomiting diminished
oxycodone 10 mg or 15 osteoarthritis pain to similar, low levels in both treatment groups, however there was a consistently
mg every four to six of the knee or hip, higher frequency of nausea over the entire study with oxycodone.
hours as needed; with a score ≥4 on
maximum total daily an 11-point NRS There were no relevant changes in laboratory, urinalysis, vital sign, or ECG
dose of 90 mg while taking non- findings among patients in the two treatment groups.
opioid analgesics
or following a 24- Withdrawal symptoms, measured by the COWS, which were only of mild to
hour washout of moderate intensity, were detected in a significantly lower percentage of patients
opioid analgesics in the tapentadol group compared to the oxycodone group (17.0 vs 29.0%;
P<0.05). Additionally, the mean total SOWS score in the tapentadol group was
lower than in the oxycodone group which did not reach statistical significance
(P value not reported).
Secondary:
Tapentadol and oxycodone demonstrated similar efficacy based on pain
intensity measurements reported throughout the study.
36
Afilio et al AC, DB, IN, MC, N=1,030 Primary: Primary:
PA, PC, RCT Change in average Significant pain relief was achieved with tapentadol ER compared to placebo at
Tapentadol ER 100 mg 12 weeks pain intensity at week study endpoint. The LSM difference was - 0.7 (95% CI, -1.04, -0.33) at week 12
BID Patients >40 years (mainten- 12 of the of the maintenance period compared to placebo.
of age with a ance phase maintenance period
vs diagnosis of OA of after a 3- compared to baseline Secondary:
the knee functional week titration The LSM difference was -0.7 (95% CI, -1.00 to -0.33) for the overall
oxycodone CR 20 mg capacity class I-III, phase) Secondary: maintenance period for tapentadol ER compared to placebo.
BID and pain at Change in average
reference joint pain intensity over The average pain intensity rating with oxycodone CR was reduced significantly
requiring the entire 12 week compared to placebo for the overall maintenance period (LSM difference, -0.3;
Page 24 of 59
Duration
Initial treatment with analgesics (both maintenance period 95% CI, -0.67 to 0.00); however, no difference was reported at week 12 of the
tapentadol ER 50 mg non-opioid and compared to baseline maintenance period (LSM difference, -0.3; 95% CI, -0.68 to 0.02).
BID or oxycodone CR opioid doses ≤160
10 mg BID for three mg oral morphine The percentage of patients who achieved ≥30% reduction from baseline in
days; then doses were daily) for ≥3 average pain intensity at week 12 of the maintenance period was not
increased to tapentadol months, who were significantly different between tapentadol ER and placebo (43.0 vs 35.9%;
ER 100 mg BID or dissatisfied with P=0.058); but was significantly lower with oxycodone CR compared to placebo
oxycodone CR 20mg their current (24.9 vs 35.9%; P=0.002).
BID (minimum study analgesic regimen,
doses); at three-day and had a baseline Treatment with tapentadol ER resulted in a significantly higher percentage of
intervals doses were pain intensity score patients achieving ≥50% reduction in average pain intensity from baseline at
increased in ≥5 during the three week 12 of the maintenance period compared to placebo (32.0 vs 24.3%;
increments of days prior to P=0.027). Significantly fewer patients treated with oxycodone CR resulted
tapentadol ER 50 mg randomization achieved a ≥50% reduction in average pain intensity from baseline at week 12
or oxycodone CR 10 of the maintenance period compared to placebo (17.3 vs 24.3%; P=0.023).
mg (max daily doses:
tapentadol ER 250 mg Tapentadol ER significantly improved WOMAC global scale scores compared
BID or oxycodone CR to placebo (LSM difference, -0.21; 95% CI, -0.357 to -0.065; P=0.0047).
50 mg BID). APAP Similarly, patients treated with oxycodone CR experienced significant
≤1,000 mg/day (max of improvements in WOMAC global scale scores compared to placebo (LSM
three consecutive difference, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.343 to -0.010; P=0.0381).
days) was permitted.
Tapentadol ER significantly improved subscale scores compared to treatment
with placebo (LSM difference, -0.27; 95% CI, -0.422 to -0.126; P<0.001);
however there was no difference in subscores for patients treated with
oxycodone CR compared to placebo (LSM difference, -0.17; 95% CI, -0.338 to -
0.000; P=0.051).
The physical function subscale at week 12 was significantly improved with

tapentadol ER compared to placebo (LSM difference, -0.21; 95% CI, -0.357 to -
0.060; P=0.006), whereas the difference between oxycodone CR and placebo
was
-0.20 (95% CI, -0.373 to -0.034; P=0.019).
The stiffness subscale assessment was improved with tapentadol ER
Page 25 of 59
Duration
compared to placebo (LSM difference, -0.17; 95% CI, -0.377 to -0.002;
P=0.053); however, the difference was not statistically significant. Similarly,
there was no statistically significant difference in stiffness subscale scores
between oxycodone ER and placebo (LSM difference, -0.10, 95% CI, -0.292 to
0.096; P=0.321).
The incidence of adverse events was 61.1% with placebo, 75.9% with
tapentadol ER and 87.4% with oxycodone CR. The most common events
(≥10% in any group) in the active treatment groups were nausea, constipation,
vomiting, dizziness, headache, somnolence, fatigue and pruritus. The majority
of reported events were mild to moderate in severity. Events leading to
discontinuation occurred in 6.5% of patients treated with placebo, 19.2% of
patients treated with tapentadol ER, and 42.7% of patients treated with
oxycodone ER. Gastrointestinal-related events were the most common events
in both active treatment groups.
37
Wild et al AC, MC, OL, PG, N=1,121 Primary: Primary:
RCT Safety and tolerability The proportion of patients who completed treatment in the tapentadol ER and
Tapentadol ER 100 to 51 weeks oxycodone CR groups were 46.2 and 35.0%, respectively, with the most
250 mg BID Men and women (maintenance Secondary: common reason for discontinuation in both treatment groups being adverse
≥18 years of age phase) Change in mean pain events (22.7% for tapentadol ER and 36.8% for oxycodone ER).
vs with a diagnosis of intensity score
moderate to severe Overall, 85.7% of patients in the tapentadol ER group and 90.6% of patients in
oxycodone CR 20 to 50 knee or hip OA the oxycodone CR group experienced at least one adverse event. The most
mg BID pain or LBP (non- commonly reported events (reported by >10% in either treatment group) were
malignant) with a constipation, nausea, dizziness, somnolence, vomiting, headache and fatigue.
≥3 month history of
pain and The incidences of constipation (22.6 vs 38.6%), nausea (18.1 vs 33.2%), and
dissatisfaction with vomiting (7.0 vs 13.5%) were lower in the tapentadol ER group compared to
Initial treatment with current analgesic patients receiving oxycodone CR group. The incidence of pruritus was 5.4%
tapentadol ER 50 mg therapy and a pain among the tapentadol ER-treated patients and 10.3% among oxycodone-
BID or oxycodone CR intensity score of treated patients. No clinically relevant treatment-related effects on laboratory
10 mg BID for three ≥4 on an 11-point values, vital signs, or electrocardiogram parameters were observed.
days; then doses were rating scale after
increased to tapentadol therapy washout Adverse events led to discontinuation in 22.1% of patients in the tapentadol ER
ER 100 mg BID or group and 36.8% of patients in the oxycodone CR group. The incidence of
Page 26 of 59
Duration
oxycodone CR 20mg gastrointestinal events (i.e., nausea, vomiting or constipation) that led to
BID for four days; at discontinuation was lower in the tapentadol ER group than in the oxycodone
three-day intervals CR group (8.6 vs 21.5%, respectively).
doses were increased
in increments of Serious adverse events were reported in 5.5% of patients receiving tapentadol
tapentadol ER 50 mg ER and 4.0% of those treated with oxycodone CR.
BID or oxycodone CR
10 mg BID. Among those who reported constipation, the mean change from baseline to
endpoint was lower for patients in the tapentadol ER group compared to those
in the oxycodone CR group for the overall PAC-SYM score (0.3 vs 0.5,
respectively), as well as for the overall rectal and overall stool subscale scores.
All COWS total scores during all time periods were <25, indicating no
moderately severe or severe withdrawal in either treatment group for patients
who did not take opioids after the last dose of medication.
Mean SOWS total scores from two, three, four and five or more days after
discontinuation ranged from 6.9 to 9.5 for patients treated with tapentadol ER
and from 7.5 to 12.3 for patients treated with oxycodone CR.
Secondary:
Baseline mean pain intensity scores at endpoint among the tapentadol ER and
oxycodone CR groups decreased to 4.4 and 4.5 from the baseline scores of 7.6
and 7.6, respectively.
Ratings on the global assessment of study medication of “excellent,” “very

good,” or “good” among the tapentadol ER and oxycodone CR groups were
reported by the majority of patients (75.1 and 72.3%, respectively) and
investigators (77.3 and 72.3%, respectively).
The most commonly reported rating on the PGIC at endpoint was “much
improved” for both the tapentadol ER and oxycodone CR groups (35.7 and
32.8%, respectively). A rating of “very much improved” or “much improved” was
reported by 48.1 and 41.2%, respectively.
38
O’Donnell et al 2 AC, DB, DD, MC, N=796 Primary: Primary:
Page 27 of 59
Duration
PG, RCT (Study I) Proportion of patients The percentage of successful responders completing six weeks of treatment
Tramadol 50 mg four responding and having a ≥30% improvement from baseline in NRS-pain scale was
times daily Patients ≥18 years N=802 successfully to significantly greater in the celecoxib group compared to the tramadol group in
of age with chronic (Study II) treatment (≥30% both study I (63.2 vs 49.9%; P<0.001) and study II (64.1 vs 55.1; P=0.008).
vs LBP (≥12 weeks improvement from
duration) who 6 weeks baseline on the NRS- Secondary:
celecoxib 200 mg BID required regular pain scale) A significantly higher proportion of patients in the tramadol group (13.4 and
use of analgesics 10.6% in studies I and II, respectively) withdrew due to lack of tolerability
(≥4 days/week), Secondary: compared to the celecoxib group (1.2 and 1.0% in studies I and II, respectively;
and experienced Safety P<0.0001).
moderate to
severe LBP at The most common reasons for withdrawal in the tramadol group were nausea
baseline visit and dizziness and dyspepsia and somnolence in the celecoxib group.
(score of ≥4 on the
NRS scale for pain) A higher percentage of gastrointestinal-related adverse events were reported in
the tramadol group compared to the celecoxib group in both studies. The most
common (occurring in >5% of patients) treatment-related adverse events in
both study I and II were nausea, vomiting and constipation. No deaths were
reported in either treatment group.
39
Courtney et al PRO, RCT, SB N=49 Primary: Primary:
Analgesic efficacy The average VAS pain scores for the 14 days did not differ significantly
Tramadol 150 to 200 Patients >11 years 14 days (measured by VAS (diclofenac group: mean [SD], 38.4 [17.5]; 95% CI, 32.0 to 45.0; tramadol
mg/daily of age with post- pain scores) group: mean [SD], 37.8 [15.6]; 95% CI, 32.0 to 43.5; P=0.66).
tonsillectomy pain
vs Secondary: Secondary:
Not reported Not reported
diclofenac 100 to 150
mg/daily
40
Karlsson et al AC, MC, OL, PG, N=135 Primary: Primary:
RCT Mean weekly Box In the intent-to-treat analysis, the LSM change from baseline in Box Scale-11
Tramadol ER 150 to 12 weeks Scale-11 pain score pain score at week 12 was -2.26 for buprenorphine and -2.09 for tramadol
200 mg BID Patients ≥18 years prolonged-release. The difference between the two treatment groups was -0.17
of age with a Secondary: (95% CI, -0.89 to 0.54; P value not reported), which was within the non-
vs clinical diagnosis of Daily number of inferiority margin demonstrating that buprenorphine was non-inferior to
osteoarthritis of the tablets of tramadol ER.
Page 28 of 59
Duration
buprenorphine hip and/or knee supplemental
transdermal system 5, with suboptimal analgesic medication, Secondary:
10, 15 or 20 μg/hour analgesia in the sleep disturbance The mean number of supplemental analgesic medication used during the study
every seven days primary and quality of sleep was 206.4 tablets for buprenorphine and 203.7 tablets for tramadol ER. The
osteoarthritic joint assessment, patient- difference between the two treatment groups did not reach statistical
in the week before investigator-rated significance (P value not reported).
the first visit and global
assessment of pain There were no statistically significant differences in sleep disturbance and
relief, patient quality of sleep between the buprenorphine and tramadol ER groups (P value
preference and not reported).
safety
There were statistically significant differences in favor of buprenorphine
compared to tramadol ER with regard to patient- and investigator-rated global
assessment of pain relief (P=0.039 and P=0.020, respectively).
Ninety of 128 patients (70.3%; 95% CI, 62 to 78) preferred a once-weekly patch
as a basic analgesic treatment for osteoarthritis pain in the future.
There were no differences between the two treatment groups in the total
number of reported adverse events (P value not reported). The most commonly
observed adverse events in the buprenorphine group were nausea (30.4%),
constipation (18.8%) and dizziness (15.9%).
41
Brattwall et al AC, DB, PRO, RCT N=100 Primary: Primary:
VAS pain score, VAS The mean maximum VAS was significantly lower among etoricoxib patients
Tramadol ER 100 mg Women undergoing 7 days pain relief score, evaluated during the entire seven-day period (12.5±8.3 vs 17.3±11.0; P<0.05).
BID for seven days an elective hallux treatment satisfaction
valgus surgery and adverse events A significant difference in daily maximum pain VAS scores was observed on
vs days three, four and seven (P<0.05). The relief of pain from study medication
Secondary: was rated as high for patients in both groups; however, pain relief was
etoricoxib 120 mg QD Not reported significantly higher in the etoricoxib group (P<0.05) on days two, three and five.
for four days followed
by 90 mg QD for three Satisfaction with pain management was significantly higher in the etoricoxib
days treatment group (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in
between patients in either treatment group with regard to EQ-5D scores as
follow-up (P>0.05 for all components).
Page 29 of 59
Duration
Twenty patients in the etoricoxib group and 13 in the tramadol group, did not
take any rescue medication during the seven-day follow-up period, however,
the difference was not significant. Adverse events occurred more frequently in
the tramadol group compared to etoricoxib (P<0.05). Six patients discontinued
study medication because of side effects, primarily nausea, dizziness and
sleepiness.
Secondary;
Not reported
42
Park et al AC, MC, OL, N=97 Primary: Primary:
WOMAC OA index The WOMAC scores did not significantly increase on days 29 and 57 of
Tramadol 37.5 mg/ Patients 40 to 75 8 weeks score monotherapy with tramadol/APAP compared to meloxicam treatment (6.75 vs
APAP 325 mg up to years of age with 6.51, respectively; P value not reported).
eight tablets daily symptomatic knee Secondary:
OA for ≥1 year and Pain intensity on Secondary:
vs moderate OA NRS, overall There was no significant difference between the tramadol/APAP and meloxicam
pain (≥5 on NRS) assessment by treatment groups with regard to NRS pain intensity scores over eight weeks of
meloxicam 7.5 to 15 despite treatment patient and treatment (3.61 vs 3.51; P value not reported).
mg QD or aceclofenac with stable doses investigator
100 mg BID of NSAIDs There was no statistically significant difference between the tramadol/APAP
(meloxicam 7.5 mg and meloxicam groups in the proportion of patients who reported pain relief
or 15 mg QD or (68.2 vs 78.7%; P>0.05).
Patients received aceclofenac 100
combination therapy mg BID) for ≥4 Similar percentages of patients in the tramadol/APAP and meloxicam treatment
with tramadol 37.5 mg/ weeks groups rated medication as “good” or “very good” (44.2 vs 61.7%, respectively;
APAP 325 mg and P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the proportion of investigators
NSAIDs for four weeks. rating the treatment as “good” or “very good” in the tramadol/APAP and
Patients with an NRS meloxicam groups, respectively were 51.2 and 63.8%; P>0.05).
score <4 continued to
the maintenance
phase.
Page 30 of 59
Duration
43
Alfano et al (abstract) AC, PRO, RCT N=122 Primary: Primary:
VSR, quality of life, Treatment with tramadol/paracetamol was associated with significantly lower
Tramadol/paracetamol Patients 2 days patient assessment VSR scores at 24 hours compared to codeine/paracetamol (1.40±0.76 vs
37.5 mg/325 mg one undergoing surgical of surgical procedure 2.5±0.86; P<0.001).
tablet administered procedures (hallux and postoperative
after surgery followed valgus, outcome Fewer patients reported adverse events with tramadol/paracetamol compared
by one tablet four times haemorrhoid- to those receiving codeine/paracetamol (36 vs 62%; P<0.01).
daily ectomy, Secondary:
varicectomy and Not reported Fewer patients receiving tramadol/paracetamol required “rescue” pain
vs inguinal hernia medications compared to those receiving codeine/paracetamol (5.5 vs 18.2%;
repair) P<0.01).
codeine/paracetamol
30 mg/500 mg one Significantly more patients treated with tramadol/paracetamol rated their
tablet administered treatment as “excellent” compared to patients in the codeine/paracetamol
after surgery followed treatment group (54.5 vs 16.0%; P<0.001).
by one tablet four times
daily Secondary:
Not reported
44
Mullican et al AC, DB, DD, PG, N=462 Primary: Primary:
RCT Efficacy (measured Mean TOTPAR scores were comparable between the two groups at each
Tramadol 37.5 mg/ 4 weeks by patient reported weekly observation.
APAP 325 mg every Men and women pain relief and pain
four to six hours >18 years of age intensity using Likert Mean SPID scores were similar for tramadol/APAP and codeine/APAP at each
with chronic scales, and overall visit.
vs nonmalignant LBP, efficacy as reported
osteoarthritis pain, by investigators) The maximum number of doses required in a single day for pain relief was a
codeine 30 mg/APAP or both mean of 5.5 tablets of tramadol/APAP and 5.7 capsules of codeine/APAP.
300 mg every four to Secondary:
six hours Safety The percentage of patients requiring supplemental ibuprofen at any point was
comparable between the groups and ranged from 21 to 30% for each week of
the study. The mean duration of therapy was 25.5 days for tramadol/APAP and
25.0 days for codeine/APAP.
Secondary:
The overall rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable for
Page 31 of 59
Duration
the two treatment groups. Seventy one percent of the tramadol/APAP and 76%
of the codeine/APAP treated patients reported adverse events.
Somnolence (24% [37/153] and constipation (21% [32/153]) were significantly

more common in the codeine/APAP group than in the tramadol group (17%
[54/309] and 11% [35/309]; P=0.05 and P<0.01, respectively).
45
Fricke et al DB, PC, RCT N=456 Primary: Primary:
Efficacy (measured Tramadol/APAP was superior to tramadol (P<0.001) or placebo (P<0.001) for
Tramadol 50 mg single- Men and women 1 day by hourly PAR and all the primary efficacy endpoints, regardless of the time interval examined.
dose aged 18 to 75 who pain intensity scores) Tramadol was numerically superior to placebo but was not statistically different
underwent elective from placebo for any of the endpoints.
vs. outpatient surgery Secondary:
for extraction of at PID and PAR at each Mean PAR scores were greater at all time points after a dose of tramadol/APAP
tramadol 37.5 mg/ least two upper or time point, time to compared to tramadol (P<0.001) or placebo (P<0.001). Tramadol was
APAP 325 mg single- lower impacted onset of perceptible/ significantly more effective than placebo for mean PAR scores at hour two
dose third molars meaningful PAR, (P=0.022), but not at the other time points evaluated.
time to rescue
vs analgesia, and Mean PID scores also demonstrated greater improvement throughout the study
adverse events in the tramadol/APAP group compared to the tramadol (P<0.001) or placebo
placebo (P<0.001) group.
Secondary:
Tramadol/APAP-treated patients reported meaningful PAR more rapidly than
tramadol-treated (P<0.001) or placebo-treated (P<0.001) patients. Tramadol-
treated patients reported meaningful PAR more rapidly than placebo-treated
patients (P=0.035).
Tramadol/APAP also had significantly faster onset of action compared to

tramadol (P<0.001) or placebo (P<0.001) with respect to perceptible PAR, but
tramadol did not demonstrate significantly faster onset of perceptible PAR
compared to placebo (P=0.805).
The overall incidences of adverse events were 54% in the tramadol/APAP

group, 64% in the tramadol group and 39% in the placebo group. Nausea was
significantly less common in the tramadol/APAP group (33%) compared to the
Page 32 of 59
Duration
tramadol group (46%; P=0.019).
46
Beaulieu et al DB, DD, RCT, XO N=122 Primary: Primary:
Pain intensity Mean pain intensity scores did not differ during the first two weeks of treatment
Tramadol ER 200 to Men and women 8 weeks (measured by VAS in each phase, however, there was a significant difference between ER and IR
400 mg/daily aged 18 to 75 and ordinal scales) tramadol during the last two weeks of treatment in each phase.
years with chronic
vs (>1 month) Secondary: In the completer population, during the last two weeks of each phase, the mean
noncancerous pain Tolerability (SD) VAS scores were 29.9 (20.5) and 36.2 (20.4) mm for ER and IR tramadol,
tramadol IR 50 to 100 respectively (P<0.001). The mean (SD) ordinal scores were 1.41 (0.7) and 1.64
mg every four to six (0.6), respectively (P<0.001).
hours
In the ITT population, during the last two weeks of each phase the mean (SD)
vs VAS scores were 32.5 (22.9) and 38.5 (21.2) mm for ER and IR tramadol,
respectively (P<0.003). The mean (SD) ordinal scores were 1.50 (0.80) and
placebo 1.72 (0.70), respectively (P<0.002).
In the completer population, over the course of the entire study, the mean (SD)
VAS pain intensity scores recorded in the daily diary were 34.1 (18.7) and 38.2
(20.0) mm (P=0.01) and the mean (SD) ordinal scores were 1.56 (0.50) and
1.72 (0.60) (P<0.003) during ER and IR tramadol treatment, respectively.
Secondary:
The most commonly reported adverse events in both treatment groups were
nausea, dizziness, constipation, somnolence, asthenia, headache, sweating,
and vomiting. When the most common adverse events were analyzed
individually only nausea occurred significantly more often in the ER tramadol
group (P<0.021).
Study abbreviations: AC=active-controlled, CI=confidence interval, DB=double-blind, DD=double-dummy, MC=multicenter, OL=open-label, PC=placebo-controlled, PG=parallel-group,
PRO=prospective, RCT=randomized controlled trial, SB=single-blind, SC=single center, XO=crossover
Miscellaneous abbreviations: APAP=acetaminophen, BPI=brief pain inventory, GCIC=clinical global improvement or change, COWS=clinical opiate withdrawal scale, CR=controlled-release,
DPN=diabetic peripheral neuropathy, ECG=electrocardiogram, EQ-5D=European quality of life-five dimensions, ER=extended release, HADS=hospital anxiety and depression score,
HbA1c=glycosylated hemoglobin, ITT=intent-to-treat analysis, IR=immediate release, LBP=low back pain, LSM=least squares mean, NRS=numeric rating scale, NSAIDS=nonsteroidal anti-
inflammatory drugs, OA=osteoarthritis, ODT=orally disintegrating tablet, OR=odds ratio, PAC-SYM=patient assessment of constipation symptoms, PAR=pain relief, PID=pain intensity difference,
PGIC=patient global impression of change, PI-NRS-pain intensity numeric rating scale, PRID=combined hourly pain relief and pain intensity difference, PRRS=pain relief rating scale, PVA=pain visual
analog scale, RDQ=Roland disability questionnaire, SD=standard deviation, SF-36=36-item short form health survey, SFMPQ=short form McGill pain questionnaire, SPI-24=summed pain intensity
over 24 hours, SPID= pain intensity difference from baseline, SPRID=pain intensity difference from baseline, SOWS=subjective opioid withdrawal scale, TOTPAR=total pain relief, VAS=visual
analogue scale, VRS=verbal rating scale, WOMAC OA=Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index score.
Page 33 of 59
Therapeutic Class Review: non-narcotic analgesics
Special Populations
3-12
Table 5. Special Populations
Generic Name Population and Precaution
Elderly/ Renal Hepatic Pregnancy Excreted
Children Dysfunction Dysfunction Category in Breast
Milk
Tapentadol No evidence of No dosage No dosage C Unknown
overall differences adjustment adjustment ;
in safety or required in required in tapentad
efficacy observed patients with patients with mild ol should
between elderly mild to moderate to moderate not be
and younger adult renal hepatic used
patients. impairment. impairment. during
breast
Safety and feeding
efficacy in
pediatric patients
≤18 years of age
have not been
established.
Tramadol In patients >75 Renal dose The C Yes
years of age, daily adjustment is recommended (0.1%)
doses in excess of required; for dose for adult
300 mg are not creatinine patients with
recommended. clearances of cirrhosis is 50 mg
Use tramadol <30 mL/min, it is every 12 hours.
extended-release recommended
with great caution that the dosing Tramadol
in patients ≥75 interval be extended-release
years of age. increased to should not be
every 12 hours, used in patients
Safety and with a maximum with severe
efficacy in patients daily dose of hepatic
<16 years of age 200 mg. impairment.
have not been
established. Tramadol
extended-
release should
not be used in
patients with
severe renal
impairment
(CrCl <30
mL/min).
Tramadol/ No evidence of Not studied in Not studied in C Yes
acetaminophen overall differences renal renal dysfunction. (0.1%)
in safety or dysfunction.
efficacy observed Use in patients
between elderly In patients with with hepatic
Page 34 of 59
08/29/2012
Generic Name Population and Precaution

Elderly/ Renal Hepatic Pregnancy Excreted
Children Dysfunction Dysfunction Category in Breast
Milk
and younger adult creatinine impairment is not
patients. clearances <30 recommended
mL/minute, it is
Safety and recommended
efficacy in that the dosing
pediatric patients interval be
≤16 years of age increased not to
have not been exceed two
established. tablets every 12
hours.
Adverse Drug Events

3-12
Table 6. Adverse Drug Events
Tapentadol Tramadol
Tramadol Tramadol/
Adverse Event Tapentadol Extended- Extended-
acetaminophen
Release Release
Body as a whole
Asthenia - 2 6 to 12 6.5 -
Cardiovascular
Postural
- - - 1.7 to 5.4 -
hypotension
Central Nervous System
Abnormal dreams 1 1 - - -
Anxiety 1 2 - - -
Attention
- 1 - - -
disturbances
Central nervous
- - 7 to 14 - -
system stimulation
Chills - 1 - - -
Confused state 1 - - - -
Depression - 1 - - -
Disturbances in
- 1 - - -
attention
Dizziness 24 17 26 to 33 6.9 to 22.5 3
Headache - 15 18 to 32 12.2 to 15.8 -
Insomnia 2 4 - 6.5 to 10.9 2
Somnolence 15 12 16 to 25 7.3 to 20.3 6
Tremor 1 1 - - -
Vertigo - 2 - - -
Gastrointestinal
Anorexia - - - 0.7 to 5.9 3
Constipation 8 17 24 to 46 12.2 to 29.7 6
Decreased appetite 2 2 - - -
Diarrhea - - 5 to 10 3.7 to 8.5 3
Dry mouth 4 7 5 to 10 5.0 to 9.8 2
Dyspepsia 2 3 5 to 13 - -
Nausea 30 21 24 to 40 15.1 to 26.2 3
Vomiting 18 8 9 to17 5.0 to 9.4 -
Page 35 of 59
Tapentadol Tramadol
Tramadol Tramadol/
Adverse Event Tapentadol Extended- Extended-
acetaminophen
Release Release
Infections and Infestations
Nasopharyngitis 1 - - - -
Upper respiratory
1 - - - -
tract infection
Urinary tract
1 - - - -
infection
Skin and Subcutaneous tissue
Flushing - - - 7.7 to 15.8 -
Hyperhidrosis 3 5 - - -
Pruritus 3 to 5 5 8 to 11 6.2 to 11.9 2
Rash 1 - - - -
Sweating - - 6 to 9 1.5 to 6.4 4
Other
Arthralgia 1 - - - -
Erectile dysfunction - 1 - - -
Fatigue 3 9 - - -
Feeling hot 1 2 - - -
Lethargy 1 2 - - -
Prostatic disorder - - - - 2
Vision blurred - - - - -
-Event not reported.
Contraindications
3-12
Table 7. Contraindications
Tapentadol Tramadol
Tramadol/
Contraindication Tapentadol Extended- Tramadol Extended-
acetaminophen
Release Release
Concurrent monoamine
oxidase inhibitor therapy
a a - - -
or use within the last 14
days
Hypersensitivity to any
components or the active a a a a a
ingredient
Respiratory depression,
a a - - -
significant
Acute or severe bronchial
a a - - -
asthma
Suspected or documented
a a - - -
paralytic ileus
Intoxication with alcohol,
hypnotics, narcotics,
centrally acting analgesics, - - a a a
opioids or psychotropic
drugs
Page 36 of 59
® 8,12
Boxed Warning for Nucynta ER (tapentadol)
WARNING
®
Potential for Abuse: Nucynta ER contains tapentadol, a µ-opioid agonist and a Schedule II controlled
substance with an abuse liability similar to other opioid analgesics.
®
Nucynta ER can be abused in a manner similar to other opioid agonists, legal or illicit. These risks
®
should be considered when prescribing, or dispensing Nucynta ER in situations where the physician
or pharmacist is concerned about an increased risk of misuse, abuse, or diversion. Schedule II opioid
substances which include hydromorphone, morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, oxymorphone, and
methadone have the highest potential for abuse and risk of fatal overdose due to respiratory
depression.
®
Proper Patient Selection: Nucynta ER is an extended-release formulation of tapentadol indicated for
the management of moderate to severe chronic pain in adults when a continuous, around-the-clock
opioid analgesic is needed for an extended period of time.
®
Limitations of Use: Nucynta ER is not intended for use as an as-needed analgesic.
® ®
Nucynta ER is not intended for the management of acute or postoperative pain. Nucynta ER tablets
are to be swallowed whole and are not to be split, broken, chewed, dissolved, or crushed. Taking split,
®
broken, chewed, dissolved, or crushed Nucynta ER tablets could lead to rapid release and absorption
of a potentially fatal dose of tapentadol.
Patients must not consume alcoholic beverages, prescription or nonprescription medications containing
®
alcohol. Coingestion of alcohol with Nucynta ER may result in a potentially fatal overdose of
tapentadol.
® 10,12
Boxed Warning for Ultracet (tramadol/acetaminophen)
WARNING
These products contain acetaminophen. Acetaminophen has been associated with cases of acute liver
failure, at times resulting in liver transplant and death. Most of the cases of liver injury are associated
with the use of acetaminophen at doses that exceed 4,000 milligrams per day, and often involve more
than one acetaminophen-containing product.
Warnings/Precautions
3-12
Table 8. Warnings and Precautions
Warning/Precaution Tapentadol Tramadol
Tramadol/
Tapentadol Extended- Tramadol Extended-
acetaminophen
Release Release
Accidental exposure;
can result in a fatal
a a - - -
overdose, especially in
children
Acute abdominal
conditions; tramadol use
- - a a -
may complicated clinical
assessment
Central nervous system
depression; may cause
somnolence, dizziness, a a - - -
alterations in judgment
and alterations in levels
Page 37 of 59

Tramadol/
acetaminophen
Release Release
of consciousness,
including coma
Excessive doses either
alone or in combination
with central nervous
- - a a -
system depressants are
a cause of drug-related
deaths
Driving and operating
a a - - -
machinery
Gastrointestinal
obstruction; do not
administer to patients
a a - - -
with gastrointestinal
obstruction, especially
paralytic ileus
Head injury and
increased intracranial a a a a -
pressure
Hepatic or renal disease;
clearance may be
reduced in patients with
hepatic dysfunction,
a a a a -
while the clearance of its
metabolites may be
decreased in renal
dysfunction
Hypotensive effect; may
cause severe
hypotension in an
individual whose ability
to maintain blood
a a - - -
pressure has already
been compromised by a
depleted blood volume
or concurrent
administration of drugs
Impaired
respiration/respiratory a a a a -
depression
Interactions with alcohol
and drugs of abuse;
additive effects when
used in conjunction with
a a - - -
alcohol, other opioids, or
illicit drugs that cause
central nervous system
depression
Misuse, abuse and
a a a a -
diversion
Pancreatic/biliary tract a a - - -
Page 38 of 59

Tramadol/
acetaminophen
Release Release
disease; use with
caution in patients with
biliary tract disease,
including acute
Pancreatitis
Precipitation of
withdrawal; mixed
agonist/antagonist
analgesics should not be
administered to patients
a a a a -
who have received or
are receiving a course of
therapy with a
pure opioid agonist
analgesic
Seizures a a a a -
Serotonin syndrome risk a a a a -
Special risk groups;
should be administered
cautiously and in
reduced dosages in
patients with severe
renal or hepatic
insufficiency, Addison's
disease, hypothyroidism,
prostatic hypertrophy, or
urethral stricture, and in
elderly or debilitated a a a a -
patients; caution should
be exercised in the
administration to
patients with central
nervous system
depression, toxic
psychosis, acute
alcoholism and delirium
tremens, and seizure
disorders
Use in patients with
chronic pulmonary
disease; monitor
patients for respiratory a a - a -
depression, particularly
when initiating therapy
and titrating therapy
Use is suicidal patients
or patients who are
- - a a -
addiction prone is not
recommended
Drug and alcohol
- - a a -
addiction; not approved
Page 39 of 59

Tramadol/
acetaminophen
Release Release
for the management of
addiction disorders
Phenylketonurics;
patients with a history of
sensitivity to - - a a -
phenylketones may be
at increased risk
Drug Interactions
3-12,47
Table 9. Drug Interactions
Generic Name Interacting Potential Result
Medication or Disease
Tapentadol, tramadol, Monoamine oxidase Concomitant administration may lead to an
tramadol/acetaminophen Inhibitors increased risk of seizures or serotonin
syndrome.
Tapentadol, tramadol Serotonin reuptake Additive serotonergic effects of tramadol
Inhibitors when co-administered with serotonin reuptake
inhibitors may result in serotonin syndrome.
Tapentadol, tramadol Central nervous system Concomitant administration may increase the
depressants risk for central nervous system and
respiratory depression.
Tramadol, CYP 3A4 inhibitors (e.g., Strong CYP 3A4 inhibitors may increase
tramadol/acetaminophen erythromycin, tramadol concentrations increasing the risk for
ketoconazole) serious adverse events.
Tapentadol Anticholinergic agents Concomitant administration may increase the
risk of urinary retention and severe
constipation.
Tramadol CYP 3A4 inducers (e.g., Concomitant use may decrease the clearance
phenytoin, rifampin) of tramadol.
Tramadol Carbamazepine Carbamazepine increases tramadol
metabolism possibly resulting in significantly
reduced analgesic effect. Due to the seizure
risk associated with tramadol, concomitant
administration of tramadol and
carbamazepine is not recommended.
Tramadol CYP2D6 inhibitors Concomitant administration may lead the
inhibition of the metabolism of tramadol.
Dosage and Administration

3-12
Table 10. Dosing and Administration
Generic Name Adult Dose Pediatric Dose Availability
Tapentadol Management of moderate to severe Safety and efficacy in Extended
chronic pain in adults when a pediatric patients ≤18 release tablet:
continuous, around-the-clock opioid years of age have not 50 mg
analgesic is needed for an been established. 100 mg
extended period of time, 150 mg
management of neuropathic pain 200 mg
Page 40 of 59
Generic Name Adult Dose Pediatric Dose Availability

associated with diabetic peripheral 250 mg
neuropathy in adults when a
continuous, around-the-clock opioid Tablet:
analgesic is needed for an 50 mg
extended period of time: 75 mg
Extended-release tablet: initial, 50 100 mg
mg twice daily; maintenance, titrate
to adequate analgesia; maximum,
500 mg daily
Relief of moderate to severe acute

pain in patients 18 years of age or
older:
Tablets: initial, 50 mg, 75 mg, or
100 mg every four to six hours;
maximum, 700 mg on the first day
of therapy and 600 mg on
subsequent days
Tramadol Management of moderate to Safety and efficacy in Extended-
moderately severe pain in adults: patients under 16 years of release capsule:
Tablet: initial, 25 to 50 mg in the age have not been 100 mg
morning titrated to QID; established. 150 mg
maintenance, 50 to 100 mg every 200 mg
four to six hours as needed; 300 mg
maximum, 400 mg daily
Extended-
Management of moderate to release tablet:
moderately severe chronic pain in 100 mg
adults who require around-the-clock 200 mg
treatment of their pain for an 300 mg
extended period of time:
Extended-release capsules, Orally
extended-release tablets (patients disintegrating
not currently on tramadol tablet:
immediate-release products): initial, 50 mg
100 mg QD and titrated to pain
relief; maximum 300 mg QD Tablet:
50 mg
Extended-release capsules,
extended-release tablets (patients
currently on tramadol immediate-
release products): initial, calculate
the 24-hour tramadol immediate-
release dose and round down to
nearest 100 mg increment and
administer QD
Tramadol/ Short-term (five days or less) Safety and efficacy has Tablet:
acetaminophen management of acute pain: not been established in 37.5 mg/325 mg
Tablet: initial, two tablets every four pediatric patients.
to six hours as needed for five days
or less; maximum, eight tablets
daily
Page 41 of 59
QD=once-daily, QID=four times daily
Clinical Guidelines
Table 11. Clinical Guidelines

Clinical Guideline Recommendation(s)
National · Pain is one of the most common symptoms associated with cancer.
Comprehensive · The most widely accepted algorithm for the treatment of cancer pain was
Cancer Network: developed by the World Health Organization which suggests that patients
Adult Cancer Pain
48
with pain be started on acetaminophen or a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory
(2012) drug (NSAID). If sufficient pain relief is not achieved, patients should be
escalated to a “weak opioid” and then to a “strong opioid”, such as
morphine.
· This guideline is unique it that it contains the following components:
o Pain intensity must be quantified by the patient (whenever
possible), as the algorithm bases therapeutic decisions on a
numerical value assigned to the severity of pain.
o A formal comprehensive pain assessment must be performed.
o Reassessment of pain intensity must be performed at specified
intervals to ensure that the therapy selected is having the desired
effect.
o Psychosocial support must be available.
o Specific educational material must be provided to the patient.
· The pain management algorithm distinguishes three levels of pain
intensity, based on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale: severe pain (7 to 10),
moderate pain (4 to 6) and mild pain (1 to 3).
· Pain associated with oncology emergency should be addressed while
treating the underlying condition.
· Opioid naïve patients (those not chronically receiving opioid therapy on a
daily basis) should be provided with non-opioid adjuvant analgesics as
indicated, prophylactic bowel regimen, psychosocial support as well as
patient and family education.
· Opioid naïve patients (those not chronically receiving opioid therapy on a
daily basis) experiencing severe pain should receive rapid titration of
short-acting opioids.
· For opioid-naïve patients whose pain intensity is moderate at presentation,
the pathways are quite similar to those for severe pain, with slower titration
of short-acting opioids.
· Opioid-naïve patients experiencing mild pain intensity should receive
nonopioid analgesics, such as NSAIDs or acetaminophen or treatment
with consideration of slower titration of short-acting opioids.
· Patients with chronic persistent pain controlled by stable doses of short-
acting opioids should be provided with round-the-clock extended release
or long acting formulation opioids with provision of a ‘rescue dose’ to
manage break-through or transient exacerbations of pain. Opioids with
rapid onset and short duration are preferred as rescue doses. The
repeated need for rescue doses per day may indicate the necessity to
adjust the baseline treatment.
· Optimal analgesic selection will depend on the patient’s pain intensity, any
current analgesic therapy, and concomitant medical illness(es).
· Fentanyl, hydromorphone, morphine, and oxycodone are the opioids
commonly used in the United States. An individual approach should be
used to determine opioid starting dose, frequency and titration in order to
achieve a balance between pain relief and medication adverse effects.
Page 42 of 59
· In a patient who has not been exposed to opioids in the past, morphine is
generally considered the standard starting drug of choice.
· Morphine and hydromorphone should be used with caution in patients with
fluctuating renal function due to potential accumulation of renally cleared
metabolites that may cause neurologic toxicity.
· Pure agonists (such as codeine, fentanyl, oxycodone, and oxymorphone)
are the most commonly used medications in the management of cancer
pain. Opioid agonists with a short half-life are preferred and include
fentanyl, hydromorphone, morphine, and oxycodone.
· Transdermal fentanyl is not indicated for rapid opioid titration and only
should be recommended after pain is controlled by other opioids in opioid
tolerant patients. It is usually the drug of choice for patients who are
unable to swallow, patients with poor tolerance to morphine, and patients
with poor compliance.
· Individual variations in methadone pharmacokinetics make using this
agent in cancer pain difficult. Methadone should be started at lower-than-
anticipated doses and slowly titrated upwards with provision of adequate
short acting breakthrough pain medications during the titration period.
· Meperidine, mixed agonist-antagonists, and placebos are not
recommended for cancer patients. Meperidine is contraindicated for
chronic pain especially in patients with impaired renal function or
dehydration.
· The least invasive, easiest and safest route of administration should be
provided to ensure adequate analgesia. Oral administration is preferred for
chronic opioid therapy. The oral route should be considered first in patients
who can take oral medications unless a rapid onset of analgesia is
required or the patient experiences adverse events associated with the
oral administration. Continuous parenteral infusion, intravenous or
subcutaneous, is recommended for patients who cannot swallow or absorb
opioids enterally. Opioids, given parenterally, may produce fast and
effective plasma concentrations in comparison with oral or transdermal
opioids. Intravenous route is considered for faster analgesia because of
the short lag-time between injection and effect in comparison with oral
dosing.
· The methods of administering analgesics that are widely accepted within
clinical practice include “around the clock”, “as needed”, and “patient-
controlled analgesia.”
· “Around the clock” dosing is provided to chronic pain patients for
continuous pain relief. A “rescue dose” should also be provided as a
subsequent treatment for patients receiving “around the clock” doses.
Rescue doses of short acting opioids should be provided for pain that is
not relieved by regularly scheduled, “around the clock” doses. Opioids
administered on an “as needed” basis are for patients who have
intermittent pain with pain-free intervals. The “as needed” method is also
used when rapid dose titration is required. The patient-controlled analgesia
technique allows a patient to control a device that delivers a bolus of
analgesic “on demand”.
· For opioid-naïve patients experiencing pain intensity ≥4 or a pain intensity
<4 but whose goals of pain control and function are not met, an initial dose
of 5 to 15 mg of oral morphine sulfate, 2 to 5 mg of intravenous morphine
sulfate or equivalent is recommended.
· Patients should be reassessed every 60 minutes for oral medications and
every 15 minutes for intravenous medications. If pain remains unchanged
or is increased, opioid dose is increased by 50 to 100%. If inadequate
Page 43 of 59
response is seen after two to three cycles of the opioid, changing the route
of administration from oral to intravenous or subsequent management
strategies can be considered.
· If the pain decreases to 4 to 6, the same dose of opioid is repeated and
reassessed again in 60 minutes for oral medications and 15 minutes for
intravenous medications. If the pain decreases to 0 to 3, the current
effective dose is administered “as needed” over the initial 24 hours before
proceeding to subsequent management strategies.
· No single opioid is optimal for all patients. When considering opioid
rotation, defined as changing to an equivalent dose of an alternative opioid
to avoid adverse effects, it is important to consider relative effectiveness
when switching between oral and parenteral routes to avoid subsequent
overdosing or under-dosing.
· For opioid-tolerant patients (those chronically receiving opioids on a daily
basis) experiencing breakthrough pain of intensity ≥4, a pain intensity <4
but whose goals of pain control and function are not met, in order to
achieve adequate analgesia the previous 24 hour total oral or intravenous
opioid requirement must be calculated and the new “rescue dose” must be
increased by 10 to 20%.
· Subsequent treatment is based upon the patient’s continued pain rating
score. All approaches for all pain intensity levels must be administering
regular doses of opioids with rescue doses as needed, management of
constipation coupled with psychosocial support and education for patients
and their families.
· Addition of adjuvant analgesics should be re-evaluated to either enhance
the analgesic effect of the opioids or in some cases to counter the adverse
events associated with opioids.
· Although pain intensity ratings will be obtained frequently to evaluate
opioid dose increases, a formal re-evaluation to evaluate patient’s goals of
comfort and function is mandated at each contact.
· If adequate comfort and function has been achieved, and 24-hour opioid
requirement is stable, the patient should be converted to an extended-
release oral medication (if feasible) or another extended-release
formulation (i.e., transdermal fentanyl) or long-acting agent (i.e.,
methadone). The subsequent treatment is based upon the patients’
continued pain rating score. Rescue doses of the short acting formation of
the same long acting drug may be provided during maintenance therapy
for the management of pain in cancer patients not relieved by extended-
release opioids.
· Procedure-related pain represents an acute short-lived experience which
may be accompanied by a great deal of anxiety.
· Interventions to manage procedure-related pain should take into account
the type of procedure, the anticipated level of pain, other individual
characteristics of the patient such as age, and physical condition.
· Opioids alone may not provide the optimal therapy, but when used in
conjunction with nonopioid analgesics, such as an NSAID or adjuvant, and
psychological and physical approaches; they can help to improve patient
outcomes.
· The term adjuvant refers to medication that is coadministered to manage
an adverse event of an opioid or to adjuvant analgesics that is added to
enhance analgesia. Adjuvant may also include drugs for neuropathic pain.
Clinically adjuvant analgesics consist of anticonvulsants (e.g., gabapentin,
pregabalin), antidepressants (e.g., tricyclic antidepressants),
corticosteroids, and local anesthetics (e.g., topical lidocaine patch).
Page 44 of 59
· Adjuvant analgesics are commonly used to help manage bone pain,

neuropathic pain, visceral pain, and to reduce systemic opioid requirement
and are particularly important in treating neuropathic pain that is resistant
to opioids.
· Acetaminophen and NSAIDs are recommended non-opioid analgesics that
can be used in the management of adult cancer pain.
· Non-pharmacological specialty consultations for physical modalities and
cognitive modalities may be beneficial adjuncts to pharmacologic
interventions. Attention should also be focused on psychosocial support
and providing education to patients and families.
American Pain · Before initiating chronic opioid therapy, clinicians should conduct a history,
Society: physical examination and appropriate testing, including an assessment of
Clinical Guidelines risk of substance abuse, misuse, or addiction.
for the Use of · Clinicians may consider a trial of chronic opioid therapy as an option for
Chronic Opioid chronic non-cancer pain is moderate or severe, pain is having an adverse
Therapy in Chronic impact on function or quality of life, and potential therapeutic benefits
Noncancer Pain
49
outweigh or are likely to outweigh potential harms.
(2009) · A benefit-to-harm evaluation including a history, physical examination, and
appropriate diagnostic testing, should be performed and documented
before and on an ongoing basis during chronic opioid therapy.
· When starting chronic opioid therapy, informed consent should be
obtained. A continuing discussion with the patient regarding chronic opioid
therapy should include goals, expectations, potential risks, and alternatives
to chronic opioid therapy.
· Clinicians may consider using a written chronic opioid therapy
management plan to document patent and clinician responsibilities and
expectations and assist in patient education.
· Clinicians and patients should regard initial treatment with opioids as a
therapeutic trial to determine whether chronic opioid therapy is appropriate.
· Opioid selection, initial dosing, and titration should be individualized
according to the patient’s health status, previous exposure to opioids,
attainment of therapeutic goals, and predicted or observed harms. There is
insufficient evidence to recommend short-acting vs long-acting opioids, or
as needed vs around-the-clock dosing of opioids.
· Methadone is characterized by complicated and variable pharmacokinetics
and pharmacodynamics, and should be initiated and titrated cautiously, by
clinicians familiar with its use and risks.
· Clinicians should reassess patients on chronic opioid therapy periodically
and as warranted by changing circumstances. Monitoring should include
documentation of pain intensity and level of functioning, assessments of
progress toward achieving therapeutic goals, presence of adverse events,
and adherence to prescribed therapies.
· In patients on chronic opioid therapy who are at high risk or who have
engaged in aberrant drug-related behaviors, clinicians should periodically
obtain urine drug screens or other information to confirm adherence to the
chronic opioid therapy plan of care.
· In patients on chronic opioid therapy not at high risk and not known to have
engaged in aberrant drug-related behaviors, clinicians should consider
periodically obtaining urine drug screens or other information to confirm
adherence to the chronic opioid therapy plan of care.
· Clinicians may consider chronic opioid therapy for patients with chronic
non-cancer pain and history of drug abuse, psychiatric issues, or serious
aberrant drug-related behaviors only if they are able to implement more
Page 45 of 59
frequent and stringent monitoring parameters. In such situations, clinicians

should strongly consider consultations with a mental health or addiction
specialist.
· Clinicians should evaluate patients engaging in aberrant drug-related
behaviors for appropriateness of chronic opioid therapy or need for
restructuring of therapy, referral for assistance in management, or
discontinuation of chronic opioid therapy.
· When repeated dose escalations occur in patients on chronic opioid
therapy, clinicians should evaluate potential causes and reassess benefits
relative to harms.
· In patients who require relatively high doses of chronic opioid therapy,
clinicians should evaluate for unique opioid-related adverse events,
changes in health status, and adherence to the chronic opioid therapy
treatment plan on an ongoing basis, and consider more frequent follow-up
visits.
· Clinicians should consider opioid rotation when patients on chronic opioid
therapy experience intolerable adverse events or inadequate benefit
despite dose increases.
· Clinicians should taper or wean patients off of chronic opioid therapy who
engage in repeated aberrant drug-related behaviors or drug
abuse/diversion, experience no progress toward meeting therapeutic
goals, or experience intolerable adverse events.
· Clinicians should anticipate, identify, and treat common opioid-associated
adverse events.
· As chronic non-cancer pain is often a complex biopsychosocial condition,
clinicians who prescribe chronic opioid therapy should routinely integrate
psychotherapeutic interventions, functional restoration, interdisciplinary
therapy, and other adjunctive non-opioid therapies.
· Clinicians should counsel patients on chronic opioid therapy about
transient or lasting cognitive impairment that may affect driving and work
safety. Patients should be counseled not to drive or engage in potentially
dangerous activities when impaired or if they describe or demonstrate
signs of impairment.
· Patients on chronic opioid therapy should identify a clinician who accepts
primary responsibility for their overall medical care. This clinician may or
may not prescribe chronic opioid therapy, but should coordinate
consultation and communication among all clinicians involved in the
patient’s care.
· Clinicians should pursue consultation, including interdisciplinary pain
management, when patients with chronic non-cancer pain may benefit
from additional skills or resources that they cannot provide.
· In patients on around-the-clock chronic opioid therapy with breakthrough
pain, clinicians may consider as needed opioids based upon an initial and
ongoing analysis of therapeutic benefit vs risk.
· Clinicians should counsel women of childbearing potential about the risks
and benefits of chronic opioid therapy during pregnancy and after delivery.
Clinicians should encourage minimal or no use of chronic opioid therapy
during pregnancy, unless potential benefits outweigh risks. If chronic opioid
therapy is used during pregnancy, clinicians should be prepared to
anticipate and manage risks to the patient and newborn.
· Clinicians should be aware of current federal and state laws, regulatory
guidelines, and policy statements that govern the medical use of chronic
opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer pain.
Page 46 of 59
Treatment Guidelines · The nonopioid analgesics acetaminophen, aspirin and NSAIDs are
from The Medical preferred for initial management of mild to moderate pain.
Letter: · For moderate pain, NSAIDs have been shown to be more effective than
Drugs for Pain
50
acetaminophen and aspirin, and may be equal to or greater than
(2010) acetaminophen/opioid combination products or opioids administered via
injection, at recommended doses.
· Moderate pain that does not respond to nonopioids can be treated with
weak opioids combined with nonopioid analgesics.
· Strong, full opioid agonists are the drugs of choice for the treatment of
most types of severe pain (some sever neuropathic pain may respond to
nonopioids).
· Full opioid agonists generally have no ceiling effect for their analgesia and
the dose may be increased as tolerated based on adverse effects.
· Patients who do not respond to one opioid may respond to another.
· When frequent “as needed” dosing becomes impractical, long-acting
opioids may be helpful.
· Combination regimens, including opioids, non-opioids and adjuvant
analgesics, are useful for severe chronic pain, such as pain in cancer
patients.
A Joint Clinical · Treatment is based on initial workup, evaluation, additional studies (i.e.
Practice Guideline imaging or blood work) and duration of symptoms.
from the American · The potential interventions for low back pain are outlined below:
College of Physicians Interventions for the Management of Low Back Pain
and the American Subacute
Pain Society: Acute pain or chronic
Diagnosis and Intervention Type (duration pain
Treatment of Low
14
<4 weeks) (duration >4
Back Pain (2007) weeks)
Advice to remain active Yes Yes
Application of superficial
Self-care Yes No
heat
Book, handouts Yes Yes
Acetaminophen Yes Yes
Tricyclic antidepressants No Yes
Pharmacologic Benzodiazepines Yes Yes
Therapy NSAIDs Yes Yes
Skeletal muscle relaxants Yes No
Tramadol, opioids Yes Yes
Acupuncture No Yes
Cognitive behavior therapy No Yes
Exercise therapy No Yes
Massage No Yes
Non- Progressive relaxation No Yes
pharmacologic Spinal manipulation Yes Yes
Therapy Yoga No Yes
Intensive interdisciplinary
No Yes
rehabilitation
Adapted with permission from Chou R, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of low
back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of
Physicians and the American Pain Society [published correction appears in
Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(3):247-248]. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(7):482.
· Physicians should conduct a focused history and physical examination to
Page 47 of 59
classify patients into one of three categories: (1) nonspecific pain; (2) pain
possibly associated with radiculopathy or spinal stenosis; and (3) pain
from another specific spinal cause (e.g., neurologic deficits or underlying
conditions, ankylosing spondylitis, vertebral compression fracture). Patient
history should be assessed for psychosocial risk factors.
· In combination with information and self-care, the use of medications with
proven benefits should be considered. Before beginning treatment,
physicians should evaluate the severity of the patient's baseline pain and
functional deficits and the potential benefits and risks of treatment,
including the relative lack of long-term effectiveness and safety data. In
most cases, acetaminophen or NSAIDs are the first-line options.
· Acetaminophen is considered first-line, even though it is a weaker
analgesic compared to NSAIDs, due to more favorable safety profile and
low cost. Non-selective NSAIDs are more effective for pain relief but are
associated with gastrointestinal and renovascular risks, therefore
assessments need to be made before starting a regimen.
· Skeletal muscle relaxants are associated with central nervous system
effects (primarily sedation). These agents should be used with caution.
· Benzodiazepines seem similar in efficacy as skeletal muscle relaxants for
short term pain relief but are associated with risk of abuse and tolerance.
· Opioid analgesics and tramadol are options for patients with severe,
disabling pain that is not controlled with acetaminophen or NSAIDs.
Evidence is insufficient to recommend one opioid over another.
· Opioid analgesics and tramadol carry a risk for abuse and addiction
especially with long term use. These agents should be used with caution.
American College of Nonpharmacologic recommendations for the management of hand
Rheumatology: osteoarthritis
American College of · It is recommended that health professionals should:
Rheumatology 2012 o Evaluate the ability to perform activities of daily living.
Recommendations o Instruct in joint protection techniques.
for the Use of o Provide assistive devices, as needed, to help patients perform
Nonpharmacologic activities of daily living.
and Pharmacologic o Instruct in use of thermal modalities.
Therapies in o Provide splints for patients with trapeziometacarpal joint
Osteoarthritis of the osteoarthritis.
Hand, Hip, and
15
Knee (2012) Pharmacologic recommendations for the initial management of hand
osteoarthritis
· It is recommended that health professionals should use one or more of the
following:
o Topical capsaicin.
o Topical NSAIDs, including trolamine salicylate.
o Oral NSAIDs, including cyclooxgenase-2 selective inhibitors.
o Tramadol.
· It is conditionally recommend that health professionals should not use the
following:
o Intraarticular therapies.
o Opioid analgesics.
· It is conditionally recommend that:
o In persons ≥75 years of age should use topical rather than oral
NSAIDs.
o In persons <75 years of age, no preference for using topical rather
than oral NSAIDs is expressed in the guideline.
Page 48 of 59
Nonpharmacologic recommendations for the management of knee

osteoarthritis
· It is strongly recommend that patients with knee osteoarthritis do the
following:
o Participate in cardiovascular (aerobic) and/or resistance land-
based exercise.
o Participate in aquatic exercise.
o Lose weight (for persons who are overweight).
· It is conditionally recommend that patients with knee osteoarthritis do the
following:
o Participate in self-management programs.
o Receive manual therapy in combination with supervised exercise.
o Receive psychosocial interventions.
o Use medially directed patellar taping.
o Wear medially wedged insoles if they have lateral compartment
osteoarthritis.
o Wear laterally wedged subtalar strapped insoles if they have
medial compartment osteoarthritis.
o Be instructed in the use of thermal agents.
o Receive walking aids, as needed.
o Participate in tai chi programs.
o Be treated with traditional Chinese acupuncture (conditionally
recommended only when the patient with knee osteoarthritis has
chronic moderate to severe pain and is a candidate for total knee
arthroplasty but either is unwilling to undergo the procedure, has
comorbid medical conditions, or is taking concomitant medications
that lead to a relative or absolute contraindication to surgery or a
decision by the surgeon not to recommend the procedure).
o Be instructed in the use of transcutaneous electrical stimulation
(conditionally recommended only when the patient with knee
osteoarthritis has chronic moderate to severe pain and is a
candidate for total knee arthroplasty but either is unwilling to
undergo the procedure, has comorbid medical conditions, or is
taking concomitant medications that lead to a relative or absolute
contraindication to surgery or a decision by the surgeon not to
recommend the procedure).
· No recommendation is made regarding the following:
o Participation in balance exercises, either alone or in combination
with strengthening exercises.
o Wearing laterally wedged insoles.
o Receiving manual therapy alone.
o Wearing knee braces.
o Using laterally directed patellar taping.
Pharmacologic recommendations for the initial management of knee

osteoarthritis
· It is conditionally recommend that patients with knee osteoarthritis use one
of the following:
o Acetaminophen.
o Oral NSAIDs.
o Topical NSAIDs.
o Tramadol.
o Intraarticular corticosteroid injections.
· It is conditionally recommend that patients with knee osteoarthritis not use
Page 49 of 59
the following:
o Chondroitin sulfate.
o Glucosamine.
o Topical capsaicin.
· No recommendation is made regarding the use of intraarticular
hyaluronates, duloxetine, and opioid analgesics.
Nonpharmacologic recommendations for the management of hip osteoarthritis

· It is strongly recommend that patients with hip osteoarthritis do the
following:
o Participate in cardiovascular and/or resistance land based
exercise.
o Participate in aquatic exercise.
o Lose weight (for persons who are overweight).
· It is conditionally recommend that patients with hip osteoarthritis do the
following:
o Participate in self-management programs.
o Receive manual therapy in combination with supervised exercise.
o Receive psychosocial interventions.
o Be instructed in the use of thermal agents.
o Receive walking aids, as needed.
· No recommendation is made regarding the following:
o Participation in balance exercises, either alone or in combination
with strengthening exercises.
o Participation in tai chi.
o Receiving manual therapy alone.
Pharmacologic recommendations for the initial management of hip

osteoarthritis
· It is conditionally recommend that patients with hip osteoarthritis use one
of the following:
o Acetaminophen.
o Oral NSAIDs.
o Tramadol.
o Intraarticular corticosteroid injections.
· It is conditionally recommend that patients with hip osteoarthritis not use
the following:
o Chondroitin sulfate.
o Glucosamine.
· No recommendation is made regarding the use of the following:
o Topical NSAIDs.
o Intraarticular hyaluronate injections.
o Duloxetine.
o Opioid analgesics.
American Academy Nonpharmacological/surgical therapy
of Orthopedic · Patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee should be encouraged
Surgeons: to participate in self-management educational programs, lose and maintain
Clinical Practice weight loss if overweight (body mass index >25), participate in low-impact
Guideline on aerobic fitness exercises and use range of motion/flexibility exercises and
Osteoarthritis of the quadriceps strengthening.
51
Knee (2008) · Patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee should use patellar
taping for short term relief of pain and improvement in function. Lateral
heel wedges should not be prescribed for patients with symptomatic
medial compartmental osteoarthritis of the knee.
Page 50 of 59
· Needle lavage and arthroscopy with debridement or lavage should not be

used for patients with primary symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee.
Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or loose body removal is an option in
patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee who also have primary
signs and symptoms of a torn meniscus and/or a loose body.
Pharmacological therapy
· Glucosamine and/or chondroitin sulfate should not be prescribed for
patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee.
· Patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee should receive one of
the following analgesics for pain unless there are contraindications to this
treatment:
o Acetaminophen (not to exceed 4 g per day).
o NSAIDs.
· Patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee and increased
gastrointestinal risk (age ≥60 years, comorbid medical conditions, history
of peptic ulcer disease, history of gastrointestinal bleeding, concurrent
corticosteroids and/or concomitant use of anticoagulants) should receive
one of the following analgesics for pain:
o Acetaminophen (not to exceed 4 g per day).
o Topical NSAIDs.
o Nonselective oral NSAIDs plus gastro-protective agent.
o Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors.
· Intraarticular corticosteroids can be used for short-term pain relief for
patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee.
British Society for Management of acute gout
Rheumatology and · After an acute gout episode, affected joints should be rested and analgesic
British Health and antiinflammatory drug therapy should be commenced immediately and
Professionals in continued for one to two weeks.
Rheumatology: · Fast-acting oral NSAIDs at maximum doses are the drugs of choice in
Guideline for the gout when there are no contraindications.
Management of
52
· Physicians should follow standard guidelines for the use of NSAIDs and
Gout (2007) cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients with increased risk of peptic ulcers,
bleeds or perforations.
· Colchicine can be an effective alternative but it has a slower onset of
action than NSAID therapy.
· Allopurinol should not be commenced during an acute attack. It should be
continued if used when an acute attack occurs and the acute attack should
be treated conventionally.
· Opiate analgesics can be used as adjunct therapy.
· Intraarticular corticosteroids are highly effective in acute gouty mono-
arthritis and can be effective in patients unable to tolerate NSAIDs or in
patient’s refractory to other treatments.
Diet, lifestyle modification and non-pharmacological therapy

· In overweight patients, dietary modification should be attempted to achieve
ideal body weight. However, “crash dieting” and high protein/low
carbohydrate diets should be avoided. Patients should be instructed on
proper diet to avoid precipitation of an acute gout attack.
· Affected joints should be elevated and exposed in a cool environment.
· Moderate physical exercise should be encouraged.
Management of recurrent, intercritical and chronic gout
Page 51 of 59
· The plasma urate should be maintained below 300 µmol/L.

· Uric acid lowering drug therapy should be started if further attacks occur
within one year and should also be offered to patients with tophi, renal
insufficiency, and uric acid stones and to patients who need to continue
treatment with diuretics.
· Uric acid-lowering drug therapy should be delayed until one to two weeks
after inflammation has settled.
· Long-term treatment of recurrent uncomplicated gout should be initiated
with allopurinol at a starting dose of 50 to 100 mg daily and increasing by
50 to 100 mg increments every few weeks, adjusted if necessary for renal
function, until the therapeutic target (plasma urate <300 µmol/L) or
maximum dose (900 mg daily) is reached.
· Uricosuric agents can be used as second-line drugs in patients who
excrete sufficient uric acid in those resistant to, or intolerant of, allopurinol.
Preferred drugs include: sulphinpyrazone in patients with normal renal
function or benzbromarone in patients with mild to moderate renal
insufficiency.
· Colchicine should be co-prescribed following initiation of treatment with
allopurinol or uricosuric drugs, and continued for up to six months. An
NSAID or cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor can be substituted if colchicine
cannot be used (provided that there are no contraindications). However,
the duration of therapy should be limited to six weeks.
· Aspirin in low doses (75 to 150 mg daily) has insignificant effects on the
plasma urate and can be used; however, aspirin in analgesic doses (600
to 2,400 mg daily) interferes with uric acid excretion and should be
avoided.
The European · Urate lowering therapy is recommended in patients with recurrent acute
League Against attacks, arthropathy, tophi, or radiographic changes of gout.
Rheumatism: · The therapeutic goal of urate lowering therapy is to promote crystal
European League dissolution and prevent crystal formation. The goal is to achieve and
Against maintain serum uric acids ≤6 mg/dL.
Rheumatism · Oral colchicine and/or NSAIDs are first line agents for the systemic treatment
Evidence Based of acute gouty attacks. In the absence of contraindications, an NSAID is a
Recommendations convenient and well accepted option.
for Gout. Part II: · Low doses of colchicine (0.5 mg three times daily) may be sufficient for some
Management. patient with acute gout. Higher doses may lead to side effects such as
Report of a Task diarrhea and gastrointestinal discomfort.
Force of the EULAR · Intraarticular aspirations and injection of long acting steroid is an effective
Standing and safe treatment for an acute gouty attack.
Committee For · Allopurinol is an appropriate long-term urate-lowering agent. It is
International recommended that allopurinol be started at a 100 mg daily dose and
Clinical Studies increased by 100 mg every two to four weeks if required. The dose must be
Including adjusted in patients with renal impairment. If toxicity occurs, alternatives to
Therapeutics allopurinol include other xanthine oxidase inhibitors, a uricosuric agent, or
53
(ESCISIT) (2006) allopurinol desensitization, in cases of mild rash only.
· Uricosuric agents such as probenecid and sulphinpyrazone (not available in
the United States) can be used as an alternative to allopurinol in patients
with normal renal function. The agents are contraindicated in patients with
urolithiasis.
· Prophylaxis against acute attacks during the first months of urate lowering
therapy can be achieved by colchicine (0.5 to 1.0 mg daily) and/or an NSAID
(with gastro-protection if indicated).
· When gout is associated with diuretic therapy, stop the diuretic if possible.
Page 52 of 59
For the treatment of hypertension and hyperlipidemia consider the use of

losartan and fenofibrate, respectively (both have modest uricosuric effects).
European Federation Painful polyneuropathy
of Neurological · Diabetic and non-diabetic painful polyneuropathy are similar in
Societies: symptomatology and with respect to treatment response, with the
Guidelines on the exception of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-induced neuropathy.
Pharmacological · Recommended first-line treatments include tricyclic antidepressants,
Treatment of gabapentin, pregabalin, and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors
Neuropathic Pain (duloxetine, venlafaxine).
16
(2010) · Tramadol is recommended second line, except for patients with
exacerbations of pain or those with predominant coexisting non-
neuropathic pain.
· Strong opioids are recommended third-line treatments due to concerns
regarding long-term safety, including addiction potential and misuse.
· In HIV-associated polyneuropathy, only lamotrigine (in patients receiving
antiretroviral treatment), smoking cannabis, and capsaicin patches were
found moderately useful.
PHN
· Recommended first-line treatments include a tricyclic antidepressant,
gabapentin, or pregabalin.
· Topical lidocaine with its excellent tolerability may be considered first-line
in the elderly, especially if there are concerns of adverse events of oral
medications.
· Strong opioids and capsaicin cream are recommended as second-line
therapies.
Trigeminal neuralgia
· Recommended first-line treatments include carbamazepine and
oxcarbazepine.
· Oxcarbazepine may be preferred because of decreased potential for drug
interactions. Patients with intolerable side effects may be prescribed
lamotrigine but should also be considered for a surgical intervention.
Central pain
· Recommended first-line treatments include amitriptyline, gabapentin or
pregabalin.
· Tramadol may be considered second-line.
· Strong opioids are recommended as second- or third-line if chronic
treatment is not an issue.
· Lamotrigine may be considered in central post-stroke pain or spinal cord
injury pain with incomplete cord lesion and brush-induced allodynia and
cannabinoids in multiple sclerosis only if all other treatments fail.
American Academy Anticonvulsants
of Neurology/ · If clinically appropriate, pregabalin should be offered for treatment.
American Association · Gabapentin and sodium valproate should be considered for treatment.
of Neuromuscular · There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of topiramate for
and Electrodiagnostic treatment.
Medicine/ American · Oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, and lacosamide should probably not be
Academy of Physical considered for treatment.
Medicine and
Rehabilitation: Antidepressants
Treatment of Painful · Amitriptyline, venlafaxine, and duloxetine should be considered for the
Page 53 of 59
Diabetic treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. Data are insufficient to

recommend one of these agents over another.
17
Neuropathy (2011)
· Venlafaxine may be added to gabapentin for a better response.
· There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of desipramine,
imipramine, fluoxetine, or the combination of nortriptyline and fluphenazine
in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy.
Opioids
· Dextromethorphan, morphine sulfate, tramadol, and oxycodone should be
considered for treatment. Data are insufficient to recommend one agent
over the other.
Other pharmacologic options

· Capsaicin and isosorbide dinitrate spray should be considered for
treatment.
· Clonidine, pentoxifylline, and mexiletine should probably not be considered
for treatment.
· Lidocaine patch may be considered for treatment.
· There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the usefulness of
vitamins and α-lipoic acid for treatment.
Nonpharmacologic options
· Percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation should be considered for
treatment.
· Electromagnetic field treatment, low-intensity laser treatment, and Reiki
therapy should probably not be considered for treatment.
· Evidence is insufficient to support or refute the use of amitriptyline plus
electrotherapy for treatment.
American Association Neuropathy
of Clinical · All patients with type 2 diabetes should be assessed for neuropathy at the
Endocrinologists: time of diagnosis, and all patients with type 1 diabetes should be assessed
Medical Guidelines five years after diagnosis. Annual examinations should be performed
for Clinical Practice thereafter in all patients.
for the Management · Inspect the patient’s feet at every visit to evaluate skin, nails, pulses,
of Diabetes Mellitus
54
temperature, evidence of pressure, and hygiene.
(2007) · Perform an annual comprehensive foot examination to assess sensory
function by pinprick, temperature and vibration sensation using a tuning
fork, or pressure using a monofilament.
· Refer patient to a qualified podiatrist, orthopedist, or neurologist if there is
lack of sensation or mechanical foot changes.
· Consider treatment with duloxetine or pregabalin, both of which are
indicated to treat diabetic neuropathy.
· When treating patients with cardiac autonomic neuropathy, strategies
appropriate for protection against cardiovascular disease should be
utilized.
· Tricyclic antidepressants; topical capsaicin; and antiepileptic drugs such
as carbamazepine, gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and lamotrigine
may provide symptomatic relief, but must be prescribed with knowledge of
potential toxicities.
· Further study is required before botanical preparations and dietary
supplements can be advocated to treat neuropathic symptoms.
· Maintain a referral network for podiatric and peripheral vascular studies
and care.
Page 54 of 59
American Diabetes Algorithm for the management of symptoms diabetic polyneuropathy

Association: · Exclude nondiabetic etiologies, followed by, stabilize glycemic control
Diabetic (insulin not always required in type 2 diabetes), followed by, tricyclic
Neuropathies antidepressants (e.g., amitriptyline 25 to 250 mg before bed), followed by,
55
(2005) anticonvulsants (e.g., gabapentin, typical dose 1.8 g/day), followed by,
opioid or opioid-like drugs (e.g., tramadol, oxycodone), followed by,
consider pain clinical referral.
American Academy · Tricyclic antidepressants (amitriptyline, nortriptyline, desipramine,
of Neurology: maprotiline), gabapentin, pregabalin, opioids, and topical lidocaine patches
Practice Parameter: are effective and should be used in the treatment of PHN.
Treatment of · There is limited evidence to support nortriptyline over amitriptyline, and the
Postherpetic data are insufficient to recommend one opioid over another.
56
Neuralgia (2004) · Amitriptyline has significant cardiac effects in the elderly when compared
to nortriptyline and desipramine.
· Aspirin cream is possibly effective in the relief of pain in patients with PHN,
but the magnitude of benefit is low, as seen with capsaicin.
· In countries with preservative-free intrathecal methylprednisolone
available, it may be considered in the treatment of PHN.
· Acupuncture, benzydamine cream, dextromethorphan, indomethacin,
epidural methylprednisolone, epidural morphine sulfate, iontophoresis of
vincristine, lorazepam, vitamin E, and zimelidine are not of benefit.
· The effectiveness of carbamazepine, nicardipine, biperiden,
chlorprothixene, ketamine, He:Ne laser irradiation, intralesional
triamcinolone, cryocautery, topical piroxicam, extract of Ganoderma
lucidum, dorsal root entry zone lesions, and stellate ganglion block are
unproven in the treatment of PHN.
· There is insufficient evidence to make any recommendations on the long-
term effects of these treatments.
European League · Tramadol is recommended for the management of pain in fibromyalgia.
Against Rheumatism: · Simple analgesics such as paracetamol and other weak opioids can also
Evidence-Based be considered in the treatment of fibromyalgia.
Recommendations · Corticosteroids and strong opioids are not recommended.
for the Management · Amitriptyline, fluoxetine, duloxetine, milnacipran, moclobemide and
of Fibromyalgia pirlindole (not available in the United States), reduce pain and often
57
Syndrome (2008) improve function, therefore they are recommended for the treatment of
fibromyalgia.
· Tropisetron, pramipexole and pregabalin reduce pain and are
recommended for the treatment of fibromyalgia.
Conclusions
® ®
Tramadol (Ultram ) and tapentadol (Nucynta ) are both centrally-acting opioid analgesics that produce
3,4
analgesia through their binding to µ opioid receptors and weak inhibition of norepinephrine reuptake.
Tramadol also has an inhibitory effect on serotonin reuptake. Tapentadol is approved by the Food and
Drug Administration for the relief of moderate-to-severe acute pain and tramadol is approved for the
management of moderate-to-moderately severe pain. Extended-release (ER) formulations are available
® ® ® ®
for both tramadol (ConZip , Ryzolt and Ultram ER ) and tapentadol (Nucynta ER ) and are indicated for
moderate-to-moderately severe chronic pain when a continuous, around-the-clock opioid analgesic is
5-8
needed for an extended period of time. In addition, tapentadol ER is indicated for the management of
neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy in adults when a continuous, around-the-
8
clock opioid analgesic is needed for an extended period of time. Tramadol is available in an orally
® ® 9,10
disintegrating tablet (Rybix ODT ) and in combination with acetaminophen (Ultracet ). The
Page 55 of 59
tramadol/acetaminophen combination is indicated for the short-term (less than five days) management of
10
acute pain. Tramadol is available generically in immediate-release (IR) and extended-release
formulations as well as in combination with acetaminophen. Currently there is no generic available for
12
tapentadol.
Clinical studies have generally demonstrated that tramadol and tapentadol are effective in the
management of moderate-to-moderately severe chronic pain and for the relief of moderate-to-severe
18-46
conditions of acute pain including low back pain, osteoarthritis and diabetic peripheral neuropathy.
Clinical studies evaluating tapentadol (both IR and ER) have generally demonstrated a significant pain
relief compared to placebo with a similar analgesic profile compared to oxycodone (both IR and ER).
Furthermore, both formulations of tapentadol may be associated with a more favorable adverse event
23,24,26,27,30,35-37
profile compared to oxycodone. There is a risk of seizures with both tramadol and
1,3-10
tapentadol products; however, the risk is believed to be higher with tramadol. Both tapentadol
products are classified as Schedule II controlled substances and the extended-release formulation carries
8
a Black Box Warning regarding the risk of abuse associated with its use. Tramadol and tramadol-
containing products are not currently scheduled.
Current guidelines for the treatment of low back pain recommend opioids or tramadol in patients with
severe pain that has not responded to treatment with acetaminophen or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory
14
drugs (NSAIDs). Tramadol may be considered an initial treatment option along with topical capsaicin
15
and topical or oral NSAIDs for osteoarthritis of the hand, knee or hips. Guidelines established by the
European Federation of Neurological Societies and the American Academy of Neurology generally
16,17
recommend tramadol as a second-line therapy for the treatment of polyneuropathies. The role of
immediate- or extended-release tapentadol are not specifically incorporated into currently available
treatment guidelines; however, in most cases no preference is given to one single opioid over another.
References
1. International Association for the Study of Pain. IASP Pain Terminology. Accessed December 29,
2008 at http://www.iasp-pain.org/terms-p.html#Pain.
2. Baumann TJ, Strickland JM, Herndon CM. Chapter 69. Pain Management. In: Talbert RL, DiPiro JT,
Matzke GR, Posey LM, Wells BG, Yee GC, eds. Pharmacotherapy: A Pathophysiologic Approach.
8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2011.
http://www.accesspharmacy.com.ezproxy.mcphs.edu/content.aspx?aID=7986332. Accessed August
28, 2012
®
3. Ultram [package insert]. Raritan (NJ): Janssen Ortho LLC; 2009 Sep.
®
4. Nucynta [package insert]. Titusville (NJ): Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2011 Jul.
®
5. ConZip [package insert]. Sayerville (NJ): Vertical Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2011 Jun.
®
6. Ryzolt [package insert]. Stamford (CT): Purdue Pharma L.P.; 2011 Sep.
®
7. Ultram ER [package insert]. Raritan, NJ: Ortho-McNeil; 2009 Jun.
®
8. Nucynta ER [package insert]. Titusville (NJ): Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2012 Aug.
®
9. Rybix ODT [package insert]. San Diego (CA): Victory Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2010 Aug.
®
10. Ultracet [package insert]. Raritan, NJ: Ortho-McNeil; 2011 Jun.
11. Drugs@FDA [database on the Internet]. Rockville (MD): Food and Drug Administration (US), Center
for Drug Evaluation and Research; 2012 [cited 2012 Aug 28]. Available from:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/index.cfm.
12. Drug Facts and Comparisons 4.0 [database on the Internet]. St. Louis: Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.;
2012 [cited 2012 Aug 28]. Available from: http://online.factsandcomparisons.com.
13. Leppert W, Luczak J. The role of tramadol in cancer pain treatment-a review. Support Care Cancer.
2005;13:5-17.
14. Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice
guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Int Med. 2007
Oct 2;147(7):478-91.
Page 56 of 59
15. Hochberg MC, Altman RD, April KT, Benkhalti M, Guyatt G, McGowan J, Towheed T, Welch V, Wells
G, Tugwell P; American College of Rheumatology. American College of Rheumatology 2012
recommendations for the use of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies in osteoarthritis of
the hand, hip, and knee. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012 Apr;64(4):455-74.
16. Attal N, Cruccu G, Baron R, Haanpaa M, Hansson P, Jensen TS, et al. EFNS guidelines on the
pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain: 2010 revision. Eur J Neurol. 2010 Sep;17(9):1113-
e88.
17. Bril V, England J, Franklin GM, Backonja M, Cohen J, Del Toro D, et al. Evidence-based guideline:
treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy: report of the American Academy of Neurology, the American
Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Neurology. 2011 May 17:76(20):1758-65.
18. Schwartz S, Etropolski M, Shapiro DY, Okamoto A, Lange R, Haeussler J, et al. Safety and efficacy
of tapentadol ER in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: results of a randomized-
withdrawal, placebo-controlled trial. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011 Jan;27(1):151-62.
19. Fleischmann RM, et al. Tramadol for the treatment of joint pain associated with osteoarthritis: A
randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2001;62:113-8.
20. Stoop D, De Brucker M, Haentjens P, Talebian A, de Mey J, Devroey P. Fast-release orodispersible
tramadol as analgesia in hysterosalpingography with a metal cannula or a balloon catheter. Hum
Reprod. 2010 Jun;25(6):1451-7.
21. Burch F, Fishman R, Messina N, Corser B, Radulescu F, Sarbu A et al. A comparison of the
analgesic efficacy of Tramadol Contramid OAD versus placebo in patients with pain due to
osteoarthritis. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2007 Sep;34(3):328-38.
22. Ruoff GE, et al. Tramadol/acetaminophen combination tablets for the treatment of chronic lower back
pain: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled outpatient study. Clin Ter.
2003;25:1123-41.
23. Buynak R, Shapiro DY, Okamoto A, Van Hove I, Rauschkolb C, Steup A, et al. Efficacy and safety of
tapentadol extended release for the management of chronic low back pain: results of a prospective,
randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled Phase III study. Expert Opin Pharmacother.
2010 Aug;11(11):1787-804.
24. Lange B, Kuperwasser B, Okamoto A, Steup A, Häufel T, Ashworth J, et al. Efficacy and safety of
tapentadol prolonged release for chronic osteoarthritis pain and low back pain. Adv Ther. 2010
Jun;27(6):381-99.
25. Fricke JR, Karim R, Jordan D, Rosenthal N. A double-blind, single-dose comparison of the analgesic
efficacy of tramadol/acetaminophen combination tablets, hydrocodone/acetaminophen combination
tablets, and placebo after oral surgery. Clin Ther. 2002;24:953-68.
26. Hatrick C, Van Hove I, Stegman JU, Oh C, Upmalis D. Efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol
immediate release and oxycodone HCl immediate release in patients awaiting primary joint
replacement surgery for end-stage joint disease: a 10-day, phase III, randomized, double-blind,
active- and placebo-controlled study. Clinical Therapeutics. 2009;31(2):260-71.
27. Stegman JU, Weber H, Steup A, Okamoto A, Upmalis D, Daniels S. The efficacy and tolerability of
multiple-dose tapentadol immediate release for the relief of acute pain following orthopedic
(bunionectomy) surgery. Current Medical Research and Opinions. 2008;24(11):3185-96.
28. Kean WF, Bouchard S, Roderich Gossen E. Women with pain due to osteoarthritis: the efficacy and
safety of a once-daily formulation of tramadol. Pain Med. 2009 Sep;10(6):1001-11.
29. Fishman RL, Kistler CJ, Ellerbusch MT, Aparicio RT, Swami SS, Shirley ME et al. Efficacy and safety
of 12 weeks of osteoarthritic pain therapy with once-daily tramadol (Tramadol Contramid OAD). J
®
Opioid Manag. 2007 Sep-Oct;3(5):273-80.

30. Daniels SE, Upmalis D, Okamoto A, Lange C, Haeussler J. A randomized, double-blind, phase III
study comparing multiple doses of tapentadol IR, oxycodone IR, and placebo for postoperative
(bunionectomy) pain. Current Medical Research and Opinions. 2009;25(3):765-76.
31. DeLemos BP, Xiang J, Benson C, Gana TJ, Pascual ML, Rosanna R, et al. Tramadol hydrochloride
extended-release once-daily in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee and/or hip: a double-blind,
randomized, dose-ranging trial. Am J Ther. 2011 May;18(3):216-26.
Page 57 of 59
32. Kleinert R, Lange C, Steup A, Black P, Goldberg J, Desjardins P. Single dose analgesic efficacy of
tapentadol in postsurgical dental pain: the results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled
study. Anesth Analg. 2008;107:2048-55.
33. Steigerwald I, Müller M, Davies A, Samper D, Sabatowski R, Baron R, et al. Effectiveness and safety
of tapentadol prolonged release for severe, chronic low back pain with or without a neuropathic pain
component: results of an open-label, phase 3b study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2012 Jun;28(6):911-36.
34. Steigerwald I, Müller M, Kujawa J, Balblanc JC, Calvo-Alén J. Effectiveness and safety of tapentadol
prolonged release with tapentadol immediate release on-demand for the management of severe,
chronic osteoarthritis-related knee pain: results of an open-label, phase 3b study. J Pain Res.
2012;5:121-38.
35. Hale M, Upmalis D, Okamoto A, Lange C, Rauschkolb C. Tolerability of tapentadol immediate release
in patients with lower back pain or osteoarthritis of the hip or knee over 90 days: a randomized,
double-blind study. Current Medical Research and Opinions. 2009;25(5):1095-104.
36. Afilalo M, Etropolski MS, Kuperwasser B, Kelly K, Okamoto A, Van Hove I, et al. Efficacy and safety
of tapentadol extended release compared to oxycodone controlled release for the management of
moderate to severe chronic pain related to osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, double-blind,
placebo- and active-controlled phase III study. Clin Drug Investig. 2010;30(8):489-505.
37. Wild JE, Grond S, Kuperwasser B, Gilbert J, McCann B, Lange B, et al. Long-term safety and
tolerability of tapentadol extended release for the management of chronic low back pain or
osteoarthritis pain. Pain Pract. 2010 Sept-Oct;10(5):416-27.
38. O'Donnell JB, Ekman EF, Spalding WM, Bhadra P, McCabe D, Berger MF. The effectiveness of a
weak opioid medication versus a cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective non-steroidal anti-
inflammatory drug in treating flare-up of chronic low-back pain: results from two randomized, double-
blind, 6-week studies. J Int Med Res. 2009 Nov-Dec;37(6):1789-802.
39. Courtney MJ, Cabraal D. Tamadol vs. diclofenac for post tonsillectomy analgesia. Arch Otolaryngol
Head Neck Surg. 2001;127:385-8.
40. Karlsson M, Berggren AC. Efficacy and safety of low-dose transdermal buprenorphine patches (5, 10,
and 20 microg/h) versus prolonged-release tramadol tablets (75, 100, 150, and 200 mg) in patients
with chronic osteoarthritis pain: a 12-week, randomized, open-label, controlled, parallel-group
noninferiority study. Clin Ther. 2009 Mar;31(3):503-13.
41. Brattwall M, Turan I, Jakobsson J. Pain management after elective hallux valgus surgery: a
prospective randomized double-blind study comparing etoricoxib and tramadol. Anesth Analg. 2010
Aug;111(2):544-9.
42. Park KS, Choi JJ, Kim WU, Min JK, Park SH, Cho CS. The efficacy of tramadol/acetaminophen
combination tablets (Ultracet®) as add-on and maintenance therapy in knee osteoarthritis pain
inadequately controlled by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). Clin Rheumatol. 2012
Feb;31(2):317-23.
43. Alfano G, Grieco M, Forino A, Meglio G, Pace MC, Iannotti M. Analgesia with paracetamol/tramadol
vs. paracetamol/codeine in one day-surgery: a randomized open study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci.
2011 Feb;15(2):205-10.
44. Mullican WS, Lacy JR. Tramadol/acetaminophen combination tablets and codeine/acetaminophen
combination capsules for the management of chronic pain: A comparative trial. Clin Ther.
2001;23:1429-45.
45. Fricke JR, Hewitt DJ, Jordan D, Fisher A, Rosenthal NR. A double-blind placebo controlled
comparison of tramadol/acetaminophen and tramadol in patients with postoperative dental pain. Pain.
2004;109:250-7.
46. Beaulieu AD, et al. A randomized, double-blind, 8-week crossover study of once-daily controlled-
release tramadol versus immediate-release tramadol taken as needed for chronic noncancer pain.
Clin Ther. 2007;29:49-60.
®
47. Micromedex Healthcare Series [database on the internet]. Greenwood Village (CO): Thomson
Micromedex; 2012 [cited 2012 Aug 28]. Available from http://www.thomasonhc.com/.
48. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology:
adult cancer pain. Fort Washington (PA): 2012.version 1 [cited 2012 Jul]. Available from:
http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/pain.pdf.
Page 58 of 59
49. Chou R, Fanciullo GJ, Fine PG, Adler JA, Ballantyne JC, Davies P, et al. Clinical guidelines for the
use of chronic opioid therapy in chronic noncancer pain. J pain. 2008 Feb;10(2):113-30.
50. Medical Letter, Inc. Treatment guidelines from the Medical Letter: Drugs for Pain. 2010;8(92):25-34.
51. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons: Clinical practice guideline on the treatment of
osteoarthritis of the knee (non-arthroplasty). Rosemont (IL): 2008 [Guideline on the internet] [cited
2012 July] Available from: http://www.aaos.org/research/guidelines/OAKguideline.pdf.
52. Jordan KM, Cameron JS, Snaith M, Zhang W, Doherty M, Seckl J, et al. British Society for
Rheumatology and British Health Professionals in Rheumatology. Guideline for the management of
gout. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007 Aug;46(8):1372-4.
53. Zhang W, Doherty M, Bardin T, Pascual E, Barskova V, Conaghan P, et al. EULAR evidence based
recommendations for gout. Part II: Management. Report of a task force of the EULAR Standing
Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis.
2006;65:1312-24.
54. Rodbard HW, Blonde L, Braithwaite SS, Brett EM, Cobin RH, Handelsman Y, et al. American
Association of Clinical Endocrinologists medical guidelines for clinical practice for the management of
diabetes mellitus. Endocr Pract. 2007 May-Jun;13(Suppl 1):S1-68.
55. Boulton AJ, Vinkik AL, Arezzo JC, Bril V, Feldman EL, Freeman R, et al. Diabetic neuropathies: a
statement by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(4):956-62.
56. Dubinsky RM, Kabbani H, El-Chami, Boutwell C, Ali H; Quality Standards Subcommittee of the
American Academy of Neurology. Practice parameter: treatment of postherpetic neuralgia: an
evidence-based report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of
Neurology. Neurology. 2004;63:959.
57. Carville SF. EULAR evidence-based recommendations for the management of fibromyalgia
syndrome. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67:536-41.
Page 59 of 59

Tramadol and Related Products

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tramadol and Related Products

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tramadol and Related Products

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Therapeutic Class Overview

Tramadol and Related Products

Key Points within the Medication Class

Table 1. Medications Included Within Class Review

Tramadol ER formulations have consistently demonstrated significant improvements in pain scores

Table 4. Clinical Trials

Of those patients who were randomized to placebo after achieving

Among patients who achieved ≥50% improvement in pain intensity (titration

Among patients who were randomized to placebo after achieving ≥ 50%

A total of 64.4% of tapentadol ER-treated patients and 38.4% of placebo-

The overall incidence of adverse events (maintenance phase) was 70.9%

Treatment-emergent serious adverse events occurred in 1.4% of tapentadol

The most commonly reported adverse events in the active-treatment group

The tramadol/APAP group had a significantly greater improvement in

The overall assessments of study medication by patients (P<0.001) and

The incidence of treatment failure was significantly lower in the tramadol/APAP

A total of 39.7% of patients treated with tapentadol ER compared to 27.1% of

A total of 27.0% of patients treated with tapentadol ER compared to 18.9% of

The percentage of patients in the oxycodone CR group with ≥30% improvement

There was a significant difference in PGIC ratings for both tapentadol ER

Compared to placebo, both tapentadol ER and oxycodone CR showed

No clinically important changes in laboratory values, vital signs, or

The most commonly reported events (reported by >10% in any treatment

There was a significant difference in the overall distribution of PGIC scores

Patients treated with tapentadol ER experienced statistically significant

On the EQ-5D questionnaire, significantly greater improvements from baseline

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea,

Fewer patients required supplemental analgesic medication during the eight-

The median time to remedication with a supplemental analgesic was shortest in

Patients’ mean overall assessment of study medication was statistically

The incidence of selected gastrointestinal adverse events was significantly

The distribution of responses (“good”, “very good”, or “excellent”) on the global

While providing similar analgesic efficacy, tapentadol 50 mg, when compared to

vs The most commonly reported adverse events were nausea, dizziness/vertigo,

vs Significant differences in efficacy between celecoxib and placebo validated the

ibuprofen 400 mg,

Tapentadol ER was associated with significant improvements in SF-36 domain

No significant changes were observed in any standard clinical laboratory

No clinically relevant changes were observed with regard to vital sign

The physical function subscale at week 12 was significantly improved with

The stiffness subscale assessment was improved with tapentadol ER

Ratings on the global assessment of study medication of “excellent,” “very

Somnolence (24% [37/153] and constipation (21% [32/153]) were significantly

Tramadol/APAP also had significantly faster onset of action compared to

The overall incidences of adverse events were 54% in the tramadol/APAP

Generic Name Population and Precaution

Adverse Drug Events

Warning/Precaution Tapentadol Tramadol

Warning/Precaution Tapentadol Tramadol

Warning/Precaution Tapentadol Tramadol

Dosage and Administration

Generic Name Adult Dose Pediatric Dose Availability

Relief of moderate to severe acute

QD=once-daily, QID=four times daily

Table 11. Clinical Guidelines

· Adjuvant analgesics are commonly used to help manage bone pain,

frequent and stringent monitoring parameters. In such situations, clinicians

· Physicians should conduct a focused history and physical examination to

Nonpharmacologic recommendations for the management of knee

Pharmacologic recommendations for the initial management of knee