Mu-opioid antagonists for opioid-induced bowel dysfunction

Mu-opioid antagonists for opioid-induced bowel dysfunction in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care

BACKGROUND

Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is characterised by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and gastric reflux. It is one of the major adverse events (AEs) of treatment for pain in cancer and palliative care, resulting in increased morbidity and reduced quality of life. This review is a partial update of a 2008 review, and critiques as previous update (2018) trials only for people with cancer and people receiving palliative care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess for OIBD in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care the effectiveness and safety of mu-opioid antagonists (MOAs) versus different doses of MOAs, alternative pharmacological/non-pharmacological interventions, placebo, or no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science (December 2021), clinical trial registries and regulatory websites. We sought contact with MOA manufacturers for further data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness and safety of MOAs for OIBD in people with cancer and people at a palliative stage irrespective of the type of terminal disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The appropriateness of combining data from the trials depended upon sufficient homogeneity across trials. Our primary outcomes were laxation response, effect on analgesia, and AEs. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and created summary of findings tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies (two new trials) randomising in-total 1343 adults with cancer irrespective of stage, or at palliative care stage of any disease. The MOAs were oral naldemedine and naloxone (alone or in combination with oxycodone), and subcutaneous methylnaltrexone. The trials compared MOAs with placebo, MOAs at different doses, or in combination with other drugs. Two trials of naldemedine and three of naloxone with oxycodone were in people with cancer irrespective of disease stage. The trial on naloxone alone was in people with advanced cancer. Four trials on methylnaltrexone were in palliative care where most participants had advanced cancer. All trials were vulnerable to biases; most commonly, blinding of the outcome assessor was not reported.  Oral naldemedine versus placebo Risk (i.e. chance) of spontaneous laxations in the medium term (over two weeks) for naldemedine was over threefold greater risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.52, 2 trials, 418 participants, I² = 0%. Number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 3 to 4; moderate-certainty evidence). Earlier risk of spontaneous laxations and patient assessment of bowel change was not reported. Very low-certainty evidence showed naldemedine had little to no effect on opioid withdrawal symptoms. There was little to no difference in the risk of serious (non-fatal) AEs (RR 3.34, 95% CI 0.85 to 13.15: low-certainty evidence). Over double the risk of AEs (non-serious) reported with naldemedine (moderate-certainty evidence). Low-dose oral naldemedine versus higher dose Risk of spontaneous laxations was lower for the lower dose (medium term, 0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.89, 1 trial, 111 participants (low-certainty evidence)). Earlier risk of spontaneous laxations and patient assessment of bowel change not reported. Low-certainty evidence showed little to no difference on opioid withdrawal symptoms (0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg mean difference (MD) -0.30, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.25), and occurrences of serious AEs (0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.17). Low-certainty evidence showed little to no difference on non-serious AEs. Oral naloxone versus placebo Risk of spontaneous laxations and AEs not reported. Little to no difference in pain intensity (very low-certainty evidence). Full data not given. The trial reported that no serious AEs occurred. Oral naloxone + oxycodone versus oxycodone Risk of spontaneous laxations within 24 hours and in the medium term not reported. Low-certainty evidence showed naloxone with oxycodone reduced the risk of opioid withdrawal symptoms. There was little to no difference in the risk of serious (non-fatal) AEs (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.06), 3 trials, 362 participants, I² = 55%: very low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in risk of AEs (low-certainty evidence).  Subcutaneous methylnaltrexone versus placebo Risk of spontaneous laxations within 24 hours with methylnaltrexone was fourfold greater than placebo (RR 2.97, 95% CI 2.13 to 4.13. 2 trials, 287 participants, I² = 31%. NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 3; low-certainty evidence). Risk of spontaneous laxations in the medium term was over tenfold greater with methylnaltrexone (RR 8.15, 95% CI 4.76 to 13.95, 2 trials, 305 participants, I² = 47%. NNTB 2, 95% CI 2 to 2; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence showed methylnaltrexone reduced the risk of opioid withdrawal symptoms, and did not increase risk of a serious AE (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93. I² = 0%; 2 trials, 364 participants). The risk of AEs was higher for methylnaltrexone (low-certainty evidence). Lower-dose subcutaneous methylnaltrexone versus higher dose There was little to no difference in risk of spontaneous laxations in the medium-term (1 mg versus 5 mg or greater: RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 10.39; 1 trial, 26 participants very low-certainty evidence), or in patient assessment of improvement in bowel status (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.35, 1 trial, 102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Medium-term assessment of spontaneous laxations and serious AEs not reported. There was little to no difference in symptoms of opioid withdrawal (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.34, 1 trial, 102 participants) or occurrence of AEs (low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update's findings for naldemedine and naloxone with oxycodone have been strengthened with two new trials, but conclusions have not changed. Moderate-certainty evidence for oral naldemedine on risk of spontaneous laxations and non-serious AEs suggests in people with cancer that naldemedine may improve bowel function over two weeks and increase the risk of AEs. There was low-certainty evidence on serious AEs. Moderate-certainty evidence for methylnaltrexone on spontaneous laxations over two weeks suggests subcutaneous methylnaltrexone may improve bowel function in people receiving palliative care, but certainty of evidence for AEs was low. More trials are needed, more evaluation of AEs, outcomes patients rate as important, and in children.

Laxatives for the management of constipation in palliative care patients

BACKGROUND

Constipation is a common problem for palliative care patients which can generate considerable suffering for patients due to both the unpleasant physical symptoms and psychological preoccupations that can arise. There is uncertainty about the 'best' management of constipation in palliative care patients and variation in practice between palliative care settings.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of laxative administration for the management of constipation in palliative care patients, and the differential efficacy of the laxatives used to manage constipation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue four, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2005), EMBASE (1980 to January 2005), CANCERLIT, PUBMED, Science Citation Index, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, SIGLE, NTIS, DHSS-DATA, Dissertation Abstracts, Index to Scientific and Technical Proceedings and NHS-NRR and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laxatives for constipation in palliative care patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted patient-reported data measuring changes in stool frequency and ease of passing stools, using objective and validated scales. Tolerance or adverse effects of laxatives used were also sought. The appropriateness of synthesizing data from the controlled trials depended upon the clinical and statistical homogeneity of studies identified. If the controlled trials were homogeneous, a meta-analysis would be attempted.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials involving 280 people were included. Between these trials, the laxatives lactulose; senna; danthron combined with poloxamer (Co-danthramer); Misrakasneham; magnesium hydroxide combined with liquid paraffin (Milpar) were evaluated. All four trials included number and frequency of bowel movements and relative ease of defecation as part of the assessment of laxative efficacy. All of the laxatives demonstrated a limited level of efficacy, although a significant number of participants required rescue laxatives in each of the studies. The only significantly different treatments were in the trial where lactulose plus senna were more effective than danthron combined with poloxamer. Patient preference did not favour either treatment option. Other related systematic reviews have similarly identified that there is a lack of evidence to support the use of one laxative, or combination of laxatives, over another.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The treatment of constipation in palliative care is based on inadequate experimental evidence, such that there are insufficient RCT data. Recommendations for laxative use can be related to costs as much as to efficacy. There have been few comparative studies, equally there have been few direct comparisons between different classes of laxative and between different combinations of laxatives. There persists an uncertainty about the 'best' management of constipation in this group of patients.