OROS hydromorphone HCl
Drug8 to 32 mg once daily for 52 weeks (flexible dosing)
NCT Number: NCT00261495
The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of sustained- release hydromorphone, formulated to release slowly over time, taken once daily, and controlled- release oxycodone taken twice daily, in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. The study will also determine the dose of sustained-release hydromorphone that provides a level of pain control that is equal to the pain control provided by control-released oxycodone (equi-analgesic dosage).
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Phase 3
Brno, Czechia
Conventional immediate-release forms of hydromorphone and oxycodone have a relatively short duration of action that require dosing every 4 to 6 hours. To counterbalance the drawback of repeated opioid intake, sustained-release formulations of oxycodone and hydromorphone were developed that allow twice-daily dosing. Subsequently, a novel, once-daily, extended-release hydromorphone formulation was developed to further enhance ease of treatment and improve effectiveness in the treatment of severe pain. This is a randomized, open-label, comparative, parallel-group, 24-week flexible-dose study in patients with chronic noncancer pain severe enough to require continuous opioid therapy. Patients will receive either 8 mg of sustained-release hydromorphone, taken once daily or 10 mg of controlled-release oxycodone, taken twice daily. Individual adjustments in dosing will be performed to achieve satisfactory pain control, up to a maximum daily dosage of 32 mg for hydromorphone and 80 mg for oxycodone. The primary efficacy outcome will be the determination of the dose of hydromorphone that produces a level of pain control that is equal to the pain control provided by oxycodone (equi-analgesic dose). Safety will be monitored throughout the study. The study hypothesis is that sustained-release hydromorphone taken once daily is well tolerated and is not inferior with regard to pain control to controlled-release oxycodone taken twice daily.
Amendment:
Amendment was made to the duration of the study from duration of '24 weeks' to '52 weeks' in order to collect long-term safety and efficacy data. OROS hydromorphone 8, 16, or 32 mg tablets QD or SR oxycodone 10, 20, or 40 mg tablets BID. Individual adjustments in dosing performed to achieve satisfactory pain control over 24 weeks. Amendment: treatment duration was extended to 52 weeks.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
8 to 32 mg once daily for 52 weeks (flexible dosing)
10, 20, or 40 mg twice a day for 52 weeks (flexible dosing)
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Assessment of non-inferiority of OROS hydromorphone compared with sustained release (SR) oxycodone with regard to pain control by measuring the change from baseline in pain severity, using BPI item 6 "pain right now" score at week 24. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = no pain and 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain right now".
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Assessment of non-inferiority of OROS hydromorphone compared with SR oxycodone with regard to pain control by measuring the change from baseline in pain severity, using BPI item 6 "pain right now" score at week 24. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = no pain and 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain right now".
Time frame: week 24
If non-inferiority of OROS hydromorphone was established, the daily dose of OROS hydromorphone and SR oxycodone that induced the same pain control was to be calculated (average dose used at week 24). Relative equi-analgesic dose was defined as mean dose/allowed maximum dose*100. Allowed maximum doses were 32mg OROS hydromorphone and 80mg SR oxycodone respectively.
Time frame: week 24
If non-inferiority of OROS hydromorphone was established, the daily dose of OROS hydromorphone and SR oxycodone that induced the same pain control was to be calculated (average dose used at week 24). Relative equi-analgesic dose was defined as mean dose/allowed maximum dose*100. Allowed maximum doses were 32mg OROS hydromorphone and 80mg SR oxycodone respectively.
Time frame: week 4 to week 24
Dose of OROS hydromorphone and SR oxycodone that induced the same pain control at steady state, defined as the mean dose from week 4 to week 24.
Time frame: week 4 to week 24
Dose of OROS hydromorphone and SR oxycodone that induced the same pain control at steady state, defined as the mean dose from week 4 to week 24.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline to week 24 in BPI pain severity, pain at its worst (BPI item 3) assessed using the BPI questionnaire. Score values ranges from 0 (no pain) to 10 (pain as bad as you can imagine). Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = no pain and 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain at its worst".
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in sleep quality was assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) questionnaire at week 24, specifically the sleep subscale index I. Score range 0 to 100, where 0 = best sleep quality and 100 = worst sleep quality. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improved sleep quality.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline to week 24 in subject diary evening mean pain score "pain right now". Subjects rated the severity of "pain right now" on a 10 point numeric scale, with 0 being the least pain and 10 being the most pain. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in subject diary evening mean pain score "pain right now".
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline to week 24 in subject diary morning mean pain score "pain right now". Subjects rated the severity of "pain right now" on a 10 point numeric scale, with 0 being the least pain and 10 being the most pain. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in subject diary evening mean pain score "pain right now".
Time frame: week 4 and week 24
Number of subjects with dose increase in study medication.
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in pain severity was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically "pain right now" (BPI item 6) at week 4. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = no pain and 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain right now".
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in pain severity was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically "pain at its least" (BPI item 4) at week 4. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = no pain and 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain at its least".
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in pain severity was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically "pain at its worst" (BPI item 3) at week 4. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = no pain and 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain at its worst".
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in pain severity was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically "average pain" (BPI item 5) at week 4. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = no pain and 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "average pain".
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in pain severity was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically pain relief (BPI item 8) at week 4. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 100, where 0 = no relief and 100 = complete relief. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in pain relief.
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in BPI pain severity was assessed using the BPI questionnaire (mean of BPI items 3 to 6) at week 4. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = no pain and 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in pain severity.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in pain severity was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically "pain at its least" (BPI item 4) at week 24. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = no pain and 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain at its least".
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in pain severity was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically "average pain" (BPI item 5) at week 24. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = no pain and 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "average pain".
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in pain severity was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically pain relief (BPI item 8) at week 24. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 100, where 0 = no relief and 100 = complete relief. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in pain relief.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change in pain severity was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically average (mean) score of BPI items 3 to 6 (worst pain, least pain, average pain, and pain right now) at week 24. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = no pain and 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine. Negative scores indicate improvement in pain severity.
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in interference of pain was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically BPI item 9a "pain interfered with general activity" at week 4. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = does not interfere and 10 = completely interferes. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain interfered with general activity".
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in pain interference was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically BPI item 9b "pain interfered with mood" at week 4. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = does not interfere and 10 = completely interferes. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain interfered with mood".
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in pain interference was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically BPI item 9c "pain interfered with walking ability" at week 4. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = does not interfere and 10 = completely interferes. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain interfered with walking ability".
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in pain interference was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically BPI item 9d "pain interfered with normal work" at week 4. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = does not interfere and 10 = completely interferes. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain interfered with normal work".
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in pain interference was assessed using BPI questionnaire, specifically BPI item 9e "pain interfered with relations with other people" at week 4. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = does not interfere and 10 = completely interferes. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain interfered with relations with other people".
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in pain interference was assessed using BPI questionnaire, specifically BPI item 9f "pain interfered with sleep" at week 4. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = does not interfere and 10 - completely interferes. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain interfered with sleep".
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in pain interference was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically BPI item 9g "pain interfered with enjoyment of life" at week 4. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = does not interfere and 10 = interferes completely. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain interfered with enjoyment of life".
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in pain interference was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically BPI item 9a "pain interfered with general activity" at week 24. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = does not interfere to 10 = completely interferes. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain interfered with general activity".
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in pain interference was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically BPI item 9b "pain interfered with mood" at week 24. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = does not interfere to 10 = completely interferes. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain interfered with mood".
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in pain interference was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically BPI item 9c "pain interfered with walking ability" at week 24. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = does not interfere to 10 = completely interferes. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain interfered with walking ability".
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in pain interference was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically BPI item 9d "pain interfered with normal work" at week 24. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = does not interfere to 10 = completely interferes. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain interfered with normal work".
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in pain interference was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically BPI item 9e "pain interfered with relations with other people" at week 24. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = does not interfere to 10 = completely interferes. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain interfered with relations with other people".
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in pain interference was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically BPI item 9f "pain interfered with sleep" at week 24. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = does not interfere to 10 = completely interferes. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain interfered with sleep".
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in pain interference was assessed using the BPI questionnaire, specifically BPI item 9g "pain interfered with enjoyment of life" at week 24. Scores could have ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 = does not interfere to 10 = completely interferes. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "pain interfered with enjoyment of life".
Time frame: baseline and week 52
Change from baseline in pain severity, pain relief, and pain interference was assessed using the BPI questionnaire at week 52. BPI items 3 to 6, score range 0 to 10, where 0 = no pain and 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine; BPI items 9a to 9g, score range from 0 to 10, where 0 = does not interfere and 10 = completely interferes. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in pain severity and pain interference. BPI item 8, score range from 0 to 100, where 0 = no relief and 100 = complete relief. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in pain relief.
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in sleep quality was assessed using the sleep subscales of the MOS questionnaire, which consists of 12 items; MOS sleep scale index I (average of item 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 12) was assessed at week 4. Score range 0 to 100, where 0 = best sleep quality and 100 = worst sleep quality. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in sleep quality.
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in sleep quality was assessed using the sleep subscales of the MOS questionnaire, which consists of 12 items. MOS index II (average of items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12) was assessed at week 4. Score range 0 to 100, where 0 = best sleep quality and 100 = worst sleep quality. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in sleep quality.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in sleep quality was assessed using the sleep subscales of the MOS questionnaire, which consists of 12 items. MOS index II (average of items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12) was assessed at week 24. Score range 0 to 100, where 0 = best sleep quality and 100 = worst sleep quality. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in sleep quality.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in sleep quality (sleep disturbance) was assessed using the MOS questionnaire at week 24. Score range 0 to 100, where 0 = best sleep quality and 100 = worst sleep quality. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in sleep disturbance.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in sleep quality (snoring) was assessed using the MOS questionnaire at week 24. Score range 0 to 100, where 0 = best sleep quality and 100 = worst sleep quality. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in snoring.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in sleep quality (sleep shortness of breath or headache) was assessed using the MOS questionnaire at week 24. Score range 0 to 100, where 0 = best sleep quality and 100 = worst sleep quality. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in sleep shortness of breath or headache.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in sleep quality (sleep adequacy) was assessed using the MOS questionnaire at week 24. Score range 0 to 100, where 0 = worst sleep quality and 100 = best sleep quality. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in sleep adequacy.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in sleep quality (sleep somnolence) was assessed using the MOS questionnaire at week 24. Score range 0 to 100, where 0 = best sleep quality and 100 = worst sleep quality. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in sleep somnolence.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in sleep quality (sleep quantity) was assessed using the MOS questionnaire at week 24. Score range 0 to 100, where 0 = worst sleep quality and 100 = best sleep quality. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in sleep quantity.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Number of subjects indicating that they had optimal sleep was assessed based on the number of hours of sleep reported on the MOS questionnaire at week 24. Optimal sleep was defined as 7 to 8 hours sleep per night.
Time frame: baseline and week 52
Change from baseline in sleep quality was assessed using the MOS questionnaire at week 52. Score range 0 to 100. For disturbance, snoring, shortness of breath or headache, and somnolence, 0 = best sleep quality and 100 = worst sleep quality; negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in sleep quality for these measures. For adequacy and quantity, 0 = worst sleep quality and 100 = best sleep quality; positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in sleep quality for these measures.
Time frame: week 52
Number of subjects who experienced optimal sleep was assessed based on the number of hours of sleep reported on the MOS questionnaire at week 52. Optimal sleep was defined as 7-8 hours sleep per night.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline to week 24 in subject diary evening, morning and all day mean pain scores for pain right now, at its worst, at its least, and average. Subjects rated the severity of pain on a 10 point numeric scale, with 0 being the least pain and 10 being the most pain. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in subject diary mean pain scores.
Time frame: baseline and weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Change from baseline in subject diary mean pain score "pain at its worst" from morning to evening at weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24. Subjects rated the severity of "pain right now" on a 10 point numeric scale, with 0 being the least pain and 10 being the most pain. Negative change from baseline scores indicate improvement in subject diary mean pain score "pain at its worst".
Time frame: week 4
The number of subjects with dose increase in study medication was assessed at week 4.
Time frame: week 24
The number of subjects with dose increase in study medication was assessed at week 24.
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in QoL was assessed using the Short Form (SF)-36 QoL questionnaire, specifically the SF-36 bodily pain index. Scores could range from 0 to 100, with a high score indicating a better QoL. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in bodily pain.
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in QoL was assessed using the SF-36 QoL questionnaire, specifically SF-36 general health perceptions score at week 4. Scores could range from 0 to 100, with a high score indicating a better QoL. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in general health perceptions.
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in QoL was assessed using the SF-36 QoL questionnaire, specifically SF-36 health transition score at week 4. Scores could range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating a better QoL. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in health transition.
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in QoL was assessed using the SF-36 QoL questionnaire, specifically SF-36 mental health score at week 4. Scores could range from 0 to 100, with a high score indicating a better QoL. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in mental health score.
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in QoL was assessed using the SF-36 QoL questionnaire, specifically SF-36 physical functioning score at week 4. Scores could range from 0 to 100, with high scores indicating a better QoL. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in physical functioning.
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in QoL was assessed using the SF-36 QoL questionnaire, specifically SF-36 "role emotional" score at week 4. Scores could range from 0 to 100, with a high score indicating a better QoL. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "role emotional".
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in QoL was assessed using the SF-36 QoL questionnaire, specifically SF-36 role physical score at week 4. Scores could range from 0 to 100, with a high score indicating a better QoL. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in role physical.
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in QoL was assessed using the SF-36 QoL questionnaire, specifically SF-36 social functioning score at week 4. Scores could range from 0 to 100, with a high score indicating a better QoL. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in social functioning.
Time frame: baseline and week 4
Change from baseline in QoL was assessed using the SF-36 QoL questionnaire, specifically SF-36 vitality score at week 4. Scores could range from 0 to 100, with a high score indicating a better QoL. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in vitality.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in QoL was assessed using the SF-36 QoL questionnaire, specifically SF-36 bodily pain index score at week 24. Score could range from 0 to 100, with a high score indicating a better QoL. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in bodily pain.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in QoL was assessed using the SF-36 QoL questionnaire, specifically SF-36 general health perceptions at week 24. Scores could range from 0 to 100 with a higher score indicating a better QoL. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in health perceptions.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in QoL was assessed using the SF-36 QoL questionnaire, specifically SF-36 health transition score at week 24. Scores could range from 0 to 100, with a high score indicating a better QoL. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in health transition.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in QoL was assessed using the SF-36 QoL questionnaire, specifically SF-36 mental health score at week 24. Scores could range from 0 to 100, with a high score indicating a better QoL. Positive change from baseline score indicates improvement in mental health.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in QoL was assessed using the SF-36 QoL questionnaire, specifically SF-36 physical functioning score at week 24. Scores could range from 0 to 100, with a high score indicating a better QoL. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in physical functioning.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in QoL was assessed using the SF-36 QoL questionnaire, specifically SF-36 "role emotional" score at week 24. Scores could range from 0 to 100 with a higher score indicating a better QoL. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in "role emotional."
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in QoL was assessed using the SF-36 QoL questionnaire, specifically SF-36 role physical score at week 24. Scores could range from 0 to 100 with a high score indicating a better QoL. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in role physical.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in QoL was assessed using the SF-36 QoL questionnaire, specifically SF-36 social functioning score at week 24. Scores could range from 0 to 100 with a high score indicating a better QoL. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in social functioning.
Time frame: baseline and week 24
Change from baseline in QoL was assessed using the SF-36 QoL questionnaire, specifically SF-36 vitality score at week 24. Scores could range from 0 to 100 with a high score indicating a better QoL. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in vitality.
Time frame: baseline and week 52
Change from baseline in QoL was assessed using the SF-36 QoL questionnaire at week 52. Scores could range from 0 to 100 with a high score indicating a better QoL. Positive change from baseline scores indicate improvement in QoL.
Time frame: weeks 4, 24, and 52
Overall clinical efficacy was assessed by the Investigator using the following global ratings: very good, good, moderate, poor, or very poor, at weeks 4, 24, and 52.
Time frame: weeks 4, 24, and 52
Number of subjects with change in dose of study treatment was assessed at weeks 4, 24, and 52.
Time frame: weeks 4 and 24
Number of subejcts with change in dose of study treatment was assessed and stratified by time on study, at least 4 weeks versus dropped out at highest dose before week 4, at weeks 4 and 24.
Time frame: baseline to week 24 (core); week 24 to week 52 (extension)
Number of drop-outs according to reasons for drop-out and due to inefficacy at maximal dosage was assessed at weeks 24 and 52.
Time frame: week 24
Number of days with add-on pain medication during the first 24 weeks of the study was assessed at week 24.
Time frame: 24 weeks
Total amount of add-on pain medication (paracetamol) for the first 24 weeks was assessed at week 24.
Time frame: weeks 4, 24, and 52
Subjects filled out a questionnaire based on the mode and convenience of drug intake and could rate their responses as very convenient, convenient, neither convenient or inconvenient, inconvenient, and very inconvenient.
Time frame: week 24
Resource utilization was defined as the number of additional visits including additional telephone visits during the treatment period. This was assessed at week 24.
Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V., Belgium
Industry
Randomized, Open-Label, Comparative Parallel Group Study to Assess Efficacy and Safety on Flexible Dosages of OROS Hydromorphone Once-Daily Compared to Sustained Release Oxycodone Twice Daily in Subjects With Chronic Non-malignant Pain Requiring Continuous Opioid Therapy.
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT07335159
Acute Pain, Agnosia
Tallahassee, Florida, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT05733039
Agnosia, Expectations
Bern, Canton of Bern, Switzerland
View Trial DetailsNCT03033589
Agnosia, Nervous System Diseases
Detroit, Michigan, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT06889870
Agnosia, Anesthesia
Itabira, Minas Gerais, Brazil
View Trial Details