Table ​Table44 shows the mean scores at baseline and end point for BPI items pain at its worst, pain at its least, pain on average, pain right now, and pain relief. When looking at the change in scores during the course of the study, pain at its least, pain on average, and current pain scores were maintained at a mild severity and worst pain scores Tipifarnib fluctuated between mild and moderate severity throughout the 1-year

study (Ruxolitinib mw Figure ​(Figure1).1). Although scores were maintained at similar levels throughout the study, the mean scores were slightly increased, Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical i.e. worsened, at end point compared with baseline. Pain relief also remained fairly stable throughout the study (Figure ​(Figure2),2), with mean (SD) scores of 72.2% (22.8%) and 59.8% (27.6%) at baseline and end point, respectively. Table Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical 4 BPI scores at baseline and end point (overall and by previous treatment) Figure 1 BPI questions 3, 4, 5, and 6: summary from baseline to subsequent months and end point (all

patients). Baseline and months 1 to 12 = absolute values; end point = last observation carried forward. Participating patient numbers – pain at its worst: n = … Figure 2 BPI pain relief: summary from baseline to subsequent months and end point (overall and by previous treatment). Baseline and months Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical 1 to 12 = absolute values; end point = last observation carried forward. Participating patient numbers – OROS® … Secondary efficacy end points Mean BPI pain interference scores remained stable during the study, Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical increasing only slightly from baseline to end point for each of the QoL items (general activity, mood, walking ability, normal work, relationships, sleep, and enjoyment of life). BPI pain interference scores at baseline and end point for all patients are shown in Figure ​Figure3.3. Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical The pain interference results by treatment in the previous equivalence study generally reflected the overall results and there were no major differences between patients who had previously received OROS® hydromorphone and CR morphine. Figure 3 BPI pain interference scores at baseline

and end point (all patients). BPI scored from 0 = does not interfere to 10 = completely interferes. BPI, brief pain inventory. Mean patient and investigator global evaluation scores of overall treatment effectiveness also remained generally stable from baseline to end point (Figure ​(Figure4).4). Brefeldin_A Treatment effectiveness was rated as fair to good throughout the study. Figure 4 Patient and investigator global evaluations at month 1 and end point (overall and by previous treatment). Scale: 0 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = very good, 5 = excellent. CR, controlled-release. Safety results Overall, 63 patients (92.6%) reported AEs during the study, 34 patients (97.1%) who had received OROS® hydromorphone in the previous equivalence study and 29 patients (87.9%) who had received CR morphine.