Timothy Deer1, Richard L Rauck2, Philip Kim3, Michael F Saulino4, Mark Wallace5, Eric J Grigsby6, I-Zu Huang7, Fannie Mori7, Geertrui F Vanhove7, Gladstone C McDowell8. 1. The Center for Pain Relief, Charleston, West Virginia, U.S.A. 2. Carolinas Pain Institute and The Center for Clinical Research, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, U.S.A. 3. Center for Interventional Pain and Spine, LLC, Newark, Delaware, U.S.A. 4. MossRehab, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 5. University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, U.S.A. 6. Napa Pain Institute, Napa, California, U.S.A. 7. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Palo Alto, California, U.S.A. 8. Integrated Pain Solutions, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Patient Registry of Intrathecal Ziconotide Management (PRIZM) evaluated long-term effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of intrathecal ziconotide treatment in clinical practice. METHODS: Patient Registry of Intrathecal Ziconotide Management was an open-label, long-term, multicenter, observational study of adult patients with severe chronic pain. This interim analysis (data through July 10, 2015) of ziconotide as the first vs. not first intrathecal agent in pump included change from baseline in the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS; primary efficacy measure) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scores. RESULTS: Enrollment closed at 93 patients; data collection was ongoing at the time of this interim analysis. Fifty-one patients (54.8%) received ziconotide as the first agent in pump (FIP+), whereas 42 (45.2%) did not (FIP-). Mean (SD) baseline NPRS scores were 7.4 (1.9) and 7.9 (1.6) in FIP+ and FIP- patients, respectively. Mean (SEM) percentage changes in NPRS scores were -29.4% (5.5%) in FIP+ patients (n = 26) and +6.4% (7.7%) in FIP- patients (n = 17) at month 6 and -34.4% (9.1%) in FIP+ patients (n = 14) and -3.4% (10.2%) in FIP- patients (n = 9) at month 12. Improvement from baseline, measured by PGIC score, was reported in 69.2% of FIP+ (n = 26) and 35.7% of FIP- (n = 14) patients at month 6 and 85.7% of FIP+ (n = 7) and 71.4% of FIP- (n = 7) patients at month 12. The most common adverse events (≥ 10% of patients overall as of the data cut) were nausea (19.6% vs. 7.1% of FIP+ vs. FIP- patients, respectively), confusional state (9.8% vs. 11.9%), and dizziness (13.7% vs. 7.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Greater improvements in efficacy outcomes were observed when ziconotide was initiated as first-line intrathecal therapy vs. not first intrathecal agent in pump. The adverse event profile was consistent with the ziconotide prescribing information.
BACKGROUND: The Patient Registry of Intrathecal Ziconotide Management (PRIZM) evaluated long-term effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of intrathecal ziconotide treatment in clinical practice. METHODS:Patient Registry of Intrathecal Ziconotide Management was an open-label, long-term, multicenter, observational study of adult patients with severe chronic pain. This interim analysis (data through July 10, 2015) of ziconotide as the first vs. not first intrathecal agent in pump included change from baseline in the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS; primary efficacy measure) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scores. RESULTS: Enrollment closed at 93 patients; data collection was ongoing at the time of this interim analysis. Fifty-one patients (54.8%) received ziconotide as the first agent in pump (FIP+), whereas 42 (45.2%) did not (FIP-). Mean (SD) baseline NPRS scores were 7.4 (1.9) and 7.9 (1.6) in FIP+ and FIP- patients, respectively. Mean (SEM) percentage changes in NPRS scores were -29.4% (5.5%) in FIP+ patients (n = 26) and +6.4% (7.7%) in FIP- patients (n = 17) at month 6 and -34.4% (9.1%) in FIP+ patients (n = 14) and -3.4% (10.2%) in FIP- patients (n = 9) at month 12. Improvement from baseline, measured by PGIC score, was reported in 69.2% of FIP+ (n = 26) and 35.7% of FIP- (n = 14) patients at month 6 and 85.7% of FIP+ (n = 7) and 71.4% of FIP- (n = 7) patients at month 12. The most common adverse events (≥ 10% of patients overall as of the data cut) were nausea (19.6% vs. 7.1% of FIP+ vs. FIP- patients, respectively), confusional state (9.8% vs. 11.9%), and dizziness (13.7% vs. 7.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Greater improvements in efficacy outcomes were observed when ziconotide was initiated as first-line intrathecal therapy vs. not first intrathecal agent in pump. The adverse event profile was consistent with the ziconotide prescribing information.
Authors: Brandon P Staub; Gianna P Casini; Edward A Monaco; Raymond F Sekula; Trent D Emerick Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 3.133
Authors: Jose De Andres; Salim Hayek; Christophe Perruchoud; Melinda M Lawrence; Miguel Angel Reina; Carmen De Andres-Serrano; Ruben Rubio-Haro; Mathew Hunt; Tony L Yaksh Journal: Front Pain Res (Lausanne) Date: 2022-06-16