Rates of appropriate laxative prophylaxis for opioid-induced constipation in veterans with lung cancer: a retrospective cohort study

Medication Use Evaluation of Docusate Sodium in Constipation Prophylaxis and Opioid Induced Constipation at the WPB VA HCS Community Living Center

INTRODUCTION

Docusate sodium's efficacy is widely debated. Several studies on opioid induced constipation (OIC) concluded that docusate sodium vs either placebo or in combination with sennosides provided no benefit.

OBJECTIVE

This medication use evaluation aimed to investigate constipation treatment trends within the West Palm Beach VA Healthcare System Community Living Center, and to assess the therapeutic effectiveness of docusate sodium.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of data extracted from April 1, 2022, to September 30, 2022. Patients were included if they had oral orders for docusate sodium, sennosides, lactulose, and/or polyethylene glycol. Patients without active bowel regimen medications were excluded. Requirements for rescue constipation medication was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients were reviewed. Docusate sodium was used in 43% (n = 42/98) of patients. Rescue medications were needed in 58% (n = 22/38) of patients receiving oral docusate sodium. 52% (n = 29/56) of patients without docusate sodium required rescue medications. For OIC treatment, when docusate sodium was added to other bowel regimens, 59% (n = 17/29) of patients needed a rescue medication, while 66% (n = 19/29) of patients without docusate sodium required a rescue medication. Patients on morphine were given the greatest quantity of rescue constipation medications (73%, n = 16/22).

CONCLUSION

Oral docusate sodium did not reduce the requirement for rescue constipation medications in the WPB VAHCS CLC population. When evaluating constipation treatment, docusate sodium may supply minimal benefit and could be identified as nonessential for deprescribing efforts. Morphine was the most constipating opioid used in this patient population, requiring more aggressive bowel regimens.

A Rapid Review on the Management of Constipation for Hospice and Palliative Care Patients

Constipation is a distressing symptom that has a high prevalence in patients receiving hospice and palliative care services, particularly in cases of opioid use. A thorough assessment, root cause analysis, monitoring, and prophylactic approach are essential for symptom management and quality of life. This rapid review assessed studies published between 2018 and 2023 to identify strategies implemented by health care professionals to prevent and/or mitigate this distressing symptom. We identified 12 articles that addressed constipation in palliative and end-of-life settings and reported on the need for multifactorial management approaches with a focus on patient-centered care that includes the caregiver(s). Bedside nurses play a key role in assessing, identifying, and managing constipation. Proper documentation and communication with the interdisciplinary team help direct earlier intervention and ongoing awareness of constipation issues. Additional research is needed on specific tools and enhanced guidelines to ensure constipation is frequently addressed and preemptively managed.

Bowel Management Protocol: Impact on Care Transitions of Oncology Patients

PURPOSE OF STUDY

The project aimed to determine the impact of a standardized bowel regimen protocol for patients receiving opioids on the rate of stool softener prescription, occurrence of bowel movements of oncology patients, and improving the length of stay (LOS).

PRIMARY PRACTICE OF SETTING

Oncology unit in a community hospital.

METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE

A posttest design was utilized, and a prospective medical record review of patients was completed after 8 weeks of the pilot study. The study sample (N = 164) included oncology patients admitted to a community hospital in the Southeast. The χ2 test was used to determine the impact of implementing a bowel panel order on the rate of stool softener prescriptions, the occurrence of bowel movements, and the LOS.

RESULTS

Only 43% (n = 40) of the patients from the comparison group were ordered laxatives, and more patients from the intervention group (68%; n = 49) received the bowel regimen protocol, whereas 26% (n = 19) of the patients used a laxative or stool softener using providers' preference and demonstrated statistical significance (p = .001). In the intervention group, 93% of the patients (n = 67) reported having bowel movements compared with the comparison group, whereas only 32% (n = 32) demonstrated statistical significance (p = .001). The average LOS in the intervention group is less than 9 days compared with the comparison group, which was at 9 days (p = .001).

IMPLICATIONS TO CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

Case managers play a critical role in coordinating care, improving transitions of care, and reducing LOS. Case managers can have a significant impact by monitoring and reminding nurses to report the gastrointestinal movements of oncology patients and then escalate opioid-induced constipation with the providers immediately. Case managers can facilitate the implementation of bowel regimen protocols, which may reduce hospitalizations and enhance patient outcomes, by taking this action.

Adherence to coprescribing of laxatives with opioids and associated characteristics in general practices in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend to prescribe a laxative with an opioid to prevent constipation. We aimed to determine the adherence by general practitioners (GPs) to this recommendation and to explore which GP- and patient related factors were associated with it from the perspective of the GP.  METHODS: We conducted an observational study using GPs' prescription data from the Nivel Primary Care Database combined with a questionnaire asking for reasons of non-adherence. The proportion of first opioid prescriptions prescribed together with a laxative was determined as primary outcome. Possible explanatory factors such as the quality of registration, the level of collaboration with the pharmacy, familiarity with the recommendation and use of a clinical decision support system were explored, as were the self-reported reasons for non-adherence (classified as either GP-related or patient-related). We assessed the association of factors with the primary outcome using univariable multilevel logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The recommendation was measured in 195 general practices. The median proportion of first opioid prescriptions prescribed together with a laxative in these practices was 54% (practice range 18-88%). None of the determinants was consistently associated with the primary outcome. GPs from 211 practices filled out the questionnaire and the most frequently mentioned reason not to prescribe a laxative was that the patient has laxatives in stock, followed by that the patient doesn't want a laxative; both were patient-related factors.

CONCLUSION

There was room for improvement in following the guideline on laxative prescribing in opioid use. A main reason seemed to be that the patient refuses a laxative. Improvement measures should therefore focus on communication between GPs and patients on the relevance of co-using a laxative with opioids. Future studies need to establish the effect of such improvement measures, and determine whether reasons for non-adherence to the guideline changed over time.

A retrospective study of the efficacy and safety of naldemedine for opioid-induced constipation in thoracic cancer patients

Background

We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study on the efficacy and safety of naldemedine in thoracic cancer patients using opioids in clinical practice.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated thoracic cancer patients treated with naldemedine at 10 institutions in Japan. Clinical data of patients administered naldemedine between June 2017 and August 2019 were extracted from electronic medical records. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) patients hospitalized for at least seven days before and after naldemedine administration, and (ii) those whose frequency of defecation was entered in the medical records.

Results

Forty patients were analyzed, and defecation frequency was observed for at least seven days before and after naldemedine administration. The response rate was 65.0% (95% CI: 50.2%–79.7%). The number of defecations increased significantly after naldemedine administration in the overall population, as well as among only those who defecated <3 times/week before naldemedine administration, and those that were administered ≥30 mg/day of morphine equivalent. Diarrhea was the most common adverse event in all grades, occurring in 11 patients (27.5%), of which 9 (81.8%) were grade 1 or 2. None of the patients experienced grade 4 or higher adverse events.

Conclusion

The efficacy and safety of naldemedine for thoracic cancer patients in clinical practice were comparable with those of prospective studies, which suggest that naldemedine may be effective and feasible for most thoracic cancer patients.

Financial Burden of Drugs Prescribed for Cancer-Associated Symptoms

PURPOSE

The financial toxicity of anticancer drugs is well-documented, but little is known about the costs of drugs used to manage cancer-associated symptoms.

METHODS

We reviewed relevant guidelines and compiled drugs used to manage seven cancer-associated symptoms (anorexia and cachexia, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, constipation, diarrhea, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, cancer-associated fatigue, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting). Using GoodRx website, we identified the retail price (cash price at retail pharmacies) and lowest price (discounted, best-case scenario of out-of-pocket costs) for patients without insurance for each drug or formulation for a typical fill. We describe lowest prices here.

RESULTS

For anorexia and cachexia, costs ranged from $5 US dollars (USD; generic olanzapine or mirtazapine tablets) to $1,156 USD (brand-name dronabinol solution) and varied widely by formulation of the same drug or dosage: for olanzapine 5 mg, $5 USD (generic tablet) to $239 USD (brand-name orally disintegrating tablet). For chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, costs of duloxetine varied from $12 USD (generic) to $529 USD (brand-name). For constipation, the cost of sennosides or polyethylene glycol was <$15 USD, whereas newer agents such as methylnaltrexone were expensive ($1,001 USD). For diarrhea, the cost of generic loperamide or diphenoxylate-atropine tablets was <$15 USD. For exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, only brand-name formulations were available, range of cost, $1,072 USD-$1,514 USD. For cancer-associated fatigue, the cost of generic dexamethasone or dexmethylphenidate was <$15 USD, whereas brand-name modafinil was more costly ($1,284 USD). For a 4-drug nausea and vomiting prophylaxis regimen, costs ranged from $181 USD to $1,430 USD.

CONCLUSION

We highlight the high costs of many symptom control drugs and the wide variation in the costs of these drugs. These findings can guide patient-clinician discussions about cost-effectively managing symptoms, while promoting the use of less expensive formulations when possible.

Use of Peripheral μ-Opioid Receptor Antagonists for Treating Opioid-Induced Constipation among US Medicare Beneficiaries from 2014 to 2018

Background: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) remains the most common adverse event associated with opioid use. Treatment with more novel and costly agents (such as peripheral μ-opioid receptor antagonists [PAMORAs]) may be indicated in patients with laxative-refractory OIC. Three PAMORAs are U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved for managing OIC-methylnaltrexone (FDA approved in 2008), naloxegol (in 2014), and naldemedine (in 2017). These drugs are indicated only in limited scenarios. Their contemporary patterns of use and burden of spending remain unknown. Objective: To evaluate the trends in use and expenditures for the three PAMORAs approved for treating OIC. Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study using the 2014-2018 Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Event data and the 2018 Part D Prescriber Public Use File. Setting: Prescribers and beneficiaries using PAMORAs. Measurements: The annual spending, number of beneficiaries, number of claims, and spending per beneficiary and claim for each PAMORA. The distribution by prescriber specialty using PAMORA. Results: From 2014 to 2018, aggregate spending on PAMORAs increased, from $13.6 to $150.9 million, and use increased, from 4221 to 72,592 beneficiaries. After FDA approval in 2014, naloxegol overtook methylnaltrexone in the number of users in 2015 and spending in 2016. In 2018, 6989 unique prescribers used any PAMORA. Among them, the most common specialties/professions were family practice (20.2%), internal medicine (18.0%), and nurse practitioner (15.4%). Conclusions: Our findings-significant and increasing expenditure on PAMORAs, and broad use across specialties-serve as a call for defining and implementing appropriate use of PAMORAs.