Efficacy of methylnaltrexone for the treatment of opiod-induced constipation: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Emerging therapies for opioid-induced constipation: what can we expect?

INTRODUCTION

The rise in opioid use for managing chronic and oncologic pain has led to a significant increase in opioid-induced constipation (OIC) that impacts patient quality of life and pain management.

AREAS COVERED

In this study, emerging therapies for OIC were criticized for refining advancements and novel treatment options. Key topics included the efficacy of peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) such as methylnaltrexone, naloxegol, and naldemedine, which specifically target opioid-induced gut dysfunction. Other treatment options, including intestinal secretagogues like lubiprostone and linaclotide, selective 5-HT receptor agonists such as prucalopride, and emerging adjunctive therapies like transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and electroacupuncture were mentioned. Current guidelines from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and the European consensus were criticized.

EXPERT OPINION

Experts stress the importance of a stepwise approach to managing OIC, considering patient-specific factors and the efficacy of various treatments. While PAMORAs have demonstrated effectiveness in improving bowel function, their high cost and lack of extensive head-to-head comparisons with traditional laxatives are significant concerns. Emerging therapies and adjunctive treatments offer promising results but require further validation through rigorous studies. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness to better address the complex needs of patients with OIC and refine treatment protocols.

Opioid-induced Constipation: Old and New Concepts in Diagnosis and Treatment

Daily use of opioid analgesics has significantly increased in recent years due to an increasing prevalence of conditions associated with chronic pain. Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is one of the most common, under-recognized, and under-treated side effects of opioid analgesics. OIC significantly reduces the quality of life by causing psychological distress, lowering work productivity, and increasing access to healthcare facilities. The economic and social burden of OIC led to the development of precise strategies for daily clinical practice. Key aspects are the prevention of constipation through adequate water intake and fiber support, avoidance of sedentariness, and early recognition and treatment of cofactors that could worsen constipation. Recommended first-line therapy includes osmotic (preferably polyethylene glycol) and stimulant laxatives. Peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists, such as methylnaltrexone, naloxegol, or naldemedine, should be used in patients that have not responded to the first-line treatments. The bowel functional index is the main tool for assessing the severity of OIC and for monitoring the response. The paper discusses the recent literature on the pathophysiology, clinical evaluation, and management of OIC and provides a pragmatic approach for its assessment and treatment.

Protocol for treatment of constipation with polyethylene glycol 3350 plus electrolytes in critically ill children

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

No studies have analysed the effectiveness of treatment for constipation in critically ill children. The aim of this study was to assess the implementation, efficacy and safety of a treatment protocol using polyethylene glycol 3350 with electrolytes (PEG 3350 + E) for constipation in critically ill children.

METHODS

We conducted a single-centre prospective study in children admitted to the paediatric intensive care unit for a minimum of 72 h and who developed constipation. Children with previous gastrointestinal disorders or diseases were excluded. The patients were treated with rectal enemas or with the oral PEG 3350 + E protocol at the discretion of the treating physician. We compared clinical and demographic variables as well as adverse events (diarrhoea, abdominal distension and electrolyte imbalances).

RESULTS

The sample included 56 patients with a mean age of 48.2 ± 11.9 months, of who 55.4% were male. Forty-four patients (78.6%) were treated with PEG 3350 + E and 12 (21.4%) with rectal enemas. The proportion of patients that responded well to treatment was greater in the PEG 3350 + E group (79.5%) compared to the enema group (58.3%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .151). There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the adverse effects. Treatment with PEG 3350 + E was more effective in children aged less than 2 years (100%) compared to older children (100% vs 65.4%; P < .01), with no significant differences in the development of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The PEG 3350 + E treatment protocol for constipation in critically ill children was effective and associated with few adverse events, even in children aged less than 2 years.

Opioid-Induced Constipation: Cost Impact of Approved Medications in the Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) prescription medications (OIC-Rx) like methylnaltrexone subcutaneous (SC) have shown efficacy in treating OIC in the emergency department (ED). This study aimed to describe and compare healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and healthcare costs in ED patients with OIC receiving OIC-Rx versus those not receiving OIC-Rx.

METHODS

Adult patients with OIC during an ED encounter were identified from a hospital-based ED encounters database (2016-2019) and classified on the basis of receipt of OIC-Rx (OIC-Rx versus No OIC-Rx cohorts). Entropy balancing was used to reweight characteristics of the two cohorts. HRU and healthcare costs were measured and compared during the ED encounter and 30-day post-discharge period.

RESULTS

Among 11,135 patients in the OIC-Rx cohort (21,474 in the No OIC-Rx cohort), 93% received methylnaltrexone SC. Patients in the OIC-Rx cohort had 0.7 fewer inpatient days per OIC ED encounter and 64% decreased odds of being hospitalized versus the No OIC-Rx cohort (both p < 0.001). During the post-discharge period, the OIC-Rx cohort had 35% decreased odds of any re-encounter (p < 0.001). The OIC-Rx cohort had a $732 reduction in costs per OIC ED encounter versus the No OIC-Rx cohort (p < 0.001), driven by larger hospitals and patients with Medicare or Commercial insurance. During the post-discharge period, the OIC-Rx cohort had a $421 reduction in costs associated with any re-encounter versus the No OIC-Rx cohort (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving OIC-Rx in the ED had decreased odds of being hospitalized and fewer re-encounters in the 30-day post-discharge period versus patients who did not receive OIC-Rx, resulting in cost savings for insurance agencies and healthcare providers.

Opioid Receptor-Mediated and Non-Opioid Receptor-Mediated Roles of Opioids in Tumour Growth and Metastasis

Opioids are administered to cancer patients in the period surrounding tumour excision, and in the management of cancer-associated pain. The effects of opioids on tumour growth and metastasis, and their consequences on disease outcome, continue to be the object of polarised, discrepant literature. It is becoming clear that opioids contribute a range of direct and indirect effects to the biology of solid tumours, to the anticancer immune response, inflammation, angiogenesis and importantly, to the tumour-promoting effects of pain. A common misconception in the literature is that the effect of opioid agonists equates the effect of the mu-opioid receptor, the major target of the analgesic effect of this class of drugs. We review the evidence on opioid receptor expression in cancer, opioid receptor polymorphisms and cancer outcome, the effect of opioid antagonists, especially the peripheral antagonist methylnaltrexone, and lastly, the evidence available of a role for opioids through non-opioid receptor mediated actions.

Opioid-Related Side Effects and Management

The following areas will be discussed in relation to opioid-related side effects and approaches to their management in the cancer patient.

Management of Opioid-Induced Constipation and Bowel Dysfunction: Expert Opinion of an Italian Multidisciplinary Panel

The prescribing and use of opioid analgesics is increasing in Italy owing to a profusion in the number and types of opioid analgesic products available, and the increasing prevalence of conditions associated with severe pain, the latter being related to population aging. Herein we provide the expert opinion of an Italian multidisciplinary panel on the management of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) and bowel dysfunction. OIC and opioid-induced bowel dysfunction are well-recognised unwanted effects of treatment with opioid analgesics that can profoundly affect quality of life. OIC can be due to additional factors such as reduced mobility, a low-fibre diet, comorbidities, and concomitant medications. Fixed-dose combinations of opioids with mu (μ) opioid receptor antagonists, such as oxycodone/naloxone, have become available, but have limited utility in clinical practice because the individual components cannot be independently titrated, creating a risk of breakthrough pain as the dose is increased. A comprehensive prevention and management strategy for OIC should include interventions that aim to improve fibre and fluid intake, increase mobility or exercise, and restore bowel function without compromising pain control. Recommended first-line pharmacological treatment of OIC is with an osmotic laxative (preferably polyethylene glycol [macrogol]), or a stimulant laxative such as an anthraquinone. A second laxative with a complementary mechanism of action should be added in the event of an inadequate response. Second-line treatment with a peripherally acting μ opioid receptor antagonist (PAMORA), such as methylnaltrexone, naloxegol or naldemedine, should be considered in patients with OIC that has not responded to combination laxative treatment. Prokinetics or intestinal secretagogues, such as lubiprostone, may be appropriate in the third-line setting, but their use in OIC is off-label in Italy, and should therefore be restricted to settings such as specialist centres and clinical trials.

Efficacy and Safety of Peripherally Acting μ-Opioid Receptor Antagonist (PAMORAs) for the Management of Patients With Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Systematic Review

In treating chronic and acute pain, opioids are widely used. Although they do provide analgesia, their usage does come with adverse events (AEs). One of the most burdensome is opioid-induced bowel dysfunction, and more specifically opioid-induced constipation (OIC). The pathogenesis of these AEs is well known as the consequence of the action of opioids on m-receptors in the enteric nervous system. In recent years, medicines counteracting this specific action at the receptors have been registered for clinical use: the peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs). The knowledge of their comparative efficacy and tolerability is very important for physicians and patients in opioid therapy. This systematic review of the existing literature on PAMORAs aimed to study the relative clinical advantages and disadvantages. The most important data banks, including "PubMed," "Embase," "CT.gov," "ICTRP" and "CINAHL" were used to find the published material on PAMORAs. The selected publications were examined to systematically analyze the efficacy and safety of the four existing PAMORAs. All of the medications are superior to placebo in reducing OIC. There are few published data on alvimopan used to treat OIC, and it is only indicated for the treatment of post-abdominal surgery ileus. Methylnaltrexone is studied mainly in its subcutaneous (SC) formulation. When used in its oral formulation, it seems more rapid than naloxegol and placebo in the reduction of OIC. Naldemedine is able to produce more spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) when compared to alvimopan and naloxegol. Tolerability was found to be similar for all of them. In particular, they affect the gastrointestinal tract (GI), with flatulence and diarrhea, especially at high dosages. For some of them, nasopharyngitis and abdominal pain were observed as treatment adverse effects (TEAs). Several cardiovascular TEAs were reported after methylnaltrexone use, but it is not clear whether they were consequences of the drug or related to the general conditions of the patients. Considering the existing data, naloxegol and naldemedine seem to be the best choices, with a higher number of spontaneous bowel movements following naldemedine administration.

Efficacy and Safety of Methylnaltrexone for the Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a distressing side effect during opioid analgesia and is mainly mediated by gastrointestinal μ-opioid receptors. Methylnaltrexone, a peripheral μ-opioid receptor antagonist with restricted ability to cross the blood-brain barrier, may alleviate OIC without reversing analgesia. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of methylnaltrexone for the treatment of OIC.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020187290). We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared methylnaltrexone with placebo for the treatment of OIC. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled using a random-effects model. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

Eight trials with 2034 participants were included. Compared with placebo, methylnaltrexone significantly increased rescue-free bowel movement (RFBM) within 4 h after the first dose (eight trials; 1833 participants; RR 3.74, 95% CI 3.02-4.62; high-certainty evidence), RFBM within 24 h after the first dose (two trials; 614 participants; RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.52-2.58; moderate-certainty evidence), and RFBM ≥ 3 times per week (three trials; 1,396 participants; RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.17-1.52; moderate-certainty evidence) and decreased need to take rescue laxatives (three trials; 807 participants; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63-0.85; moderate-certainty evidence). For safety outcomes, there was no difference in any adverse events between the two groups (eight trials; 2034 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99-1.23; moderate-certainty evidence), including diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and flatulence; but for the most commonly reported adverse events, the abdominal pain was higher in methylnaltrexone group than that in placebo group (six trials; 1813 participants; RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.29-4.08; moderate-certainty evidence).

CONCLUSION

Methylnaltrexone is an effective and safe drug for the treatment of OIC, but the safety of abdominal pain should be considered.

Peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists for treatment of opioid-induced constipation in children

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a common and important problem in paediatric palliative care, critical care, and postoperative settings. Treatment for OIC is often ineffective and limited by enteral intake. A new class of drugs called peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) have been shown to be effective treatments of OIC in adults, including the agents methylnaltrexone and naloxegol. Data in children are limited to several small case reports, mostly in the palliative care setting. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of methylnaltrexone and naloxegol in hospitalized children, including those with critical illness.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of all children admitted to the Stollery Children's Hospital in Edmonton (Canada) who received either methylnaltrexone or naloxegol for OIC. The primary outcome was median time to first bowel movement (BM) after the first dose of PAMORA.

RESULTS

A total of 27 patients were included in the study. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed the median time to the first BM after the first dose of PAMORA was 15.5 hours. Seventeen (63%) patients had laxation within 24 hours of first dose. No significant adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSION

This study is the largest to date to evaluate efficacy and safety of PAMORAs in children. Future studies should be prospective and include larger numbers of patients with critical illness and postoperative OIC as indications for treatment.

Safety concerns reported by consumers, manufacturers and healthcare professionals: A detailed evaluation of opioid-related adverse drug reactions in the FDA database over 15 years

To perform an in-depth analysis of opioid-related ADRs reported by consumers, manufacturers and healthcare professionals. Delving into the depth and breadth of reported opioid-related adverse drug reactions (ADRs) provides an opportunity to strategize better clinical management and alleviate safety concerns. Retrospective pharmacovigilance disproportionality analysis for opioid-related ADRs in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database was performed. Detailed analysis of patient (sex, age) and report (year of report; reporter: healthcare worker vs consumer) characteristics were conducted using reports from 2004 quarter 1 to 2018 quarter 4. Reporting odds ratios and confidence intervals (RORs,CI) were calculated. Of the 1 916 674 ADR reports, 300 985 indicated opioids as the primary medication. There was a surge in opioid-related ADRs reported in 2018 with six times more reports compared to 2004 and twice the number of reports compared to 2017. The largest ROR among the 20 common ADRs was depression and suicide-self-injury (ROR 3.12, 95% CI 3.01-3.22) for reports in age group ≥65 compared to age group 18 to 64, and lack of efficacy (ROR 6.80, 95% CI 6.61-7.00) for males compared to females. ADRs with the largest RORs for consumers included lack of efficacy/effect (ROR 3.37, 95% CI 3.28-3.46), administration site reactions (ROR 3.21, 95% CI 3.11-3.32), depression and suicide self-injury (ROR 2.26, 95% CI 2.14-2.38) compared to healthcare professionals. Important aspects of opioid ADR voluntary reporting included suicidal ideation in elderly patients and lack of efficacy, especially in male patients. This examination provides insight to better manage safety concerns of opioids.

Potential neuro-immune therapeutic targets in irritable bowel syndrome

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorder characterized by recurring abdominal pain and disturbed bowel habits. The aetiology of IBS is unknown but there is evidence that genetic, environmental and immunological factors together contribute to the development of the disease. Current treatment of IBS includes lifestyle and dietary interventions, laxatives or antimotility drugs, probiotics, antispasmodics and antidepressant medication. The gut-brain axis comprises the central nervous system, the hypothalamic pituitary axis, the autonomic nervous system and the enteric nervous system. Within the intestinal mucosa there are close connections between immune cells and nerve fibres of the enteric nervous system, and signalling between, for example, mast cells and nerves has shown to be of great importance during GI disorders such as IBS. Communication between the gut and the brain is most importantly routed via the vagus nerve, where signals are transmitted by neuropeptides. It is evident that IBS is a disease of a gut-brain axis dysregulation, involving altered signalling between immune cells and neurotransmitters. In this review, we analyse the most novel and distinct neuro-immune interactions within the IBS mucosa in association with already existing and potential therapeutic targets.

Comparisons of In Vivo and In Vitro Opioid Effects of Newly Synthesized 14-Methoxycodeine-6-O-sulfate and Codeine-6-O-sulfate

The present work represents the in vitro (potency, affinity, efficacy) and in vivo (antinociception, constipation) opioid pharmacology of the novel compound 14-methoxycodeine-6-O-sulfate (14-OMeC6SU), compared to the reference compounds codeine-6-O-sulfate (C6SU), codeine and morphine. Based on in vitro tests (mouse and rat vas deferens, receptor binding and [³⁵S]GTPγS activation assays), 14-OMeC6SU has µ-opioid receptor-mediated activity, displaying higher affinity, potency and efficacy than the parent compounds. In rats, 14-OMeC6SU showed stronger antinociceptive effect in the tail-flick assay than codeine and was equipotent to morphine, whereas C6SU was less efficacious after subcutaneous (s.c.) administration. Following intracerebroventricular injection, 14-OMeC6SU was more potent than morphine. In the Complete Freund’s Adjuvant-induced inflammatory hyperalgesia, 14-OMeC6SU and C6SU in s.c. doses up to 6.1 and 13.2 µmol/kg, respectively, showed peripheral antihyperalgesic effect, because co-administered naloxone methiodide, a peripherally acting opioid receptor antagonist antagonized the measured antihyperalgesia. In addition, s.c. C6SU showed less pronounced inhibitory effect on the gastrointestinal transit than 14-OMeC6SU, codeine and morphine. This study provides first evidence that 14-OMeC6SU is more effective than codeine or C6SU in vitro and in vivo. Furthermore, despite C6SU peripheral antihyperalgesic effects with less gastrointestinal side effects the superiority of 14-OMeC6SU was obvious throughout the present study.

The Use of Peripheral μ-Opioid Receptor Antagonists (PAMORA) in the Management of Opioid-Induced Constipation: An Update on Their Efficacy and Safety

Peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) constitute a class of drugs which reverse opioid-induced constipation (OIC) with similar opioid analgesic effects. OIC differs from other forms of constipation in that it is an iatrogenic condition that occurs when an opioid acts on the dense network of μ-opioid receptors in the enteric system, which affect a variety of functions including gastrointestinal motility, secretion, and other factors that can cause bowel dysfunction. Unfortunately, laxative products, bowel regimens, dietary changes, and lifestyle modifications have limited effectiveness in preventing OIC, Opioid-associated adverse effect which occurs in 40% to 80% of opioid patients and may led to cessation of the treatment. PAMORAs are μ-receptor opioid antagonists specifically developed so that they have very limited ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and thus they are able to antagonize peripheral but not central μ-opioid receptors. PAMORAs are designed to have no effect on the analgesic benefits of opioid pain relievers but to relieve but antagonizing the effects of the opioid in the gastrointestinal system. The three main PAMORAS are methyltrexone (oral or parenteral), naldemedine (oral only), and naloxegol (oral only). Clinical studies demonstrate the safety and efficacy of these agents for alleviating constipation without diminishing the analgesic effect of opioid therapy. The aim of this narrative review to update the current status of PAMORAs for treating OIC in terms of safety and efficacy.

European society of neurogastroenterology and motility guidelines on functional constipation in adults

INTRODUCTION

Chronic constipation is a common disorder with a reported prevalence ranging from 3% to 27% in the general population. Several management strategies, including diagnostic tests, empiric treatments, and specific treatments, have been developed. Our aim was to develop European guidelines for the clinical management of constipation.

DESIGN

After a thorough review of the literature by experts in relevant fields, including gastroenterologists, surgeons, general practitioners, radiologists, and experts in gastrointestinal motility testing from various European countries, a Delphi consensus process was used to produce statements and practical algorithms for the management of chronic constipation.

KEY RESULTS

Seventy-three final statements were agreed upon after the Delphi process. The level of evidence for most statements was low or very low. A high level of evidence was agreed only for anorectal manometry as a comprehensive evaluation of anorectal function and for treatment with osmotic laxatives, especially polyethylene glycol, the prokinetic drug prucalopride, secretagogues, such as linaclotide and lubiprostone and PAMORAs for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation. However, the level of agreement between the authors was good for most statements (80% or more of the authors). The greatest disagreement was related to the surgical management of constipation.

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

European guidelines on chronic constipation, with recommendations and algorithms, were developed by experts. Despite the high level of agreement between the different experts, the level of scientific evidence for most recommendations was low, highlighting the need for future research to increase the evidence and improve treatment outcomes in these patients.

Chronic Constipation

Constipation is a common symptom that may be primary (idiopathic or functional) or associated with a number of disorders or medications. Although most constipation is self-managed by patients, 22% seek health care, mostly to primary care physicians (>50%) and gastroenterologists (14%), resulting in large expenditures for diagnostic testing and treatments. There is strong evidence that stimulant and osmotic laxatives, intestinal secretagogues, and peripherally restricted μ-opiate antagonists are effective and safe; the lattermost drugs are a major advance for managing opioid-induced constipation. Constipation that is refractory to available laxatives should be evaluated for defecatory disorders and slow-transit constipation using studies of anorectal function and colonic transit. Defecatory disorders are often responsive to biofeedback therapies, whereas slow-transit constipation may require surgical intervention in selected patients. Both efficacy and cost should guide the choice of treatment for functional constipation and opiate-induced constipation. Currently, no studies have compared inexpensive laxatives with newer drugs that work by other mechanisms.

Peripherally acting μ-opioid antagonist for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a frequent adverse event (AE) that impairs patients' quality of life (QOL). Peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) have been recognized as a treatment option for OIC, but the effect consistent across the studies has not been evaluated.

METHODS

We conducted a quantitative meta-analysis to explore the efficacy of PAMORA for OIC (registered with PROSPERO: CRD42018085298). We systematically searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in Medline, Embase, and Central databases. Change from baseline in spontaneous bowel movements, pooled proportion of responders, QOL, and AEs were calculated and compared with results in placebo cases.

RESULTS

We included 31 RCTs with 7849 patients. A meta-analysis revealed that patients under PAMORA therapy had considerably improved spontaneous bowel movement from baseline compared with those given placebo (20 RCTs; mean difference, 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.68; n = 5622) and more responded (21 RCTs; risk ratio [RR], 1.81; 95% CI, 1.55-2.12; n = 4821). Moreover, QOL of patients receiving PAMORA was significantly better (8 RCTs; mean difference, -0.22; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.17; n = 2884). AEs were increased significantly in the PAMORA group (26 RCTs; RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.06-1.15; n = 7715), especially in gastrointestinal disorders, whereas serious AEs were not significant (17 RCTs; RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.85-1.28; n = 5890).

CONCLUSION

Peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonist has been shown to be effective and durable for patients with OIC and is the only drug with confirmed evidence in meta-analysis. The possibility of publication bias was the limitation of this study.

Safety of oral methylnaltrexone for opioid-induced constipation in patients with chronic noncancer pain

Purpose

Oral methylnaltrexone was shown to be effective in treating opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in patients with chronic noncancer pain in a Phase III randomized controlled trial. This report provides a detailed safety analysis from that study.

Methods

Adults (n=803) with chronic noncancer pain for ≥2 months and confirmed OIC while receiving opioid doses ≥50 mg morphine equivalent per day for ≥14 days were randomized 1:1:1:1 to oral methylnaltrexone (150, 300, or 450 mg) or placebo once daily for 4 weeks, followed by as-needed use for 8 weeks. Safety was evaluated by examining treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), clinical laboratory parameters, vital signs, electrocardiography, rescue-laxative and opioid use, Objective Opioid Withdrawal Scale (OOWS) and Subjective Opioid Withdrawal Scale (SOWS), and pain-intensity scores.

Results

TEAEs occurred at a similar incidence in the methylnaltrexone groups (59.0%) and placebo group (63.0%). The most common TEAEs with methylnaltrexone were abdominal pain (8.0% vs 8.5% with placebo), nausea (6.8% vs 9.0%), and diarrhea (6.0% vs 3.5%). Cardiac-related TEAEs occurred in 1.8% and 1.0% of patients, respectively, and no major adverse cardiovascular events were reported. No patient had a cluster of TEAEs associated with opioid withdrawal after excluding gastrointestinal TEAEs. Changes in laboratory parameters, vital signs, and electrocardiography were generally small and similar across treatment groups. Rescue-laxative use was more common with placebo than methylnaltrexone 450 mg (6.20% vs 4.27% of study days, P=0.024). Changes in opioid dose, OOWS and SOWS scores, and pain-intensity scores during treatment were minimal.

Conclusion

Oral methylnaltrexone had a safety profile comparable with placebo in the treatment of OIC in patients with chronic noncancer pain, with no evidence of cardiac toxicity or opioid withdrawal.

The Efficacy of Peripheral Opioid Antagonists in Opioid-Induced Constipation and Postoperative Ileus: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Opioid-induced constipation has a negative impact on quality of life for patients with chronic pain and can affect more than a third of patients. A related but separate entity is postoperative ileus, which is an abnormal pattern of gastrointestinal motility after surgery. Nonselective μ-opioid receptor antagonists reverse constipation and opioid-induced ileus but cross the blood-brain barrier and may reverse analgesia. Peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists target the μ-opioid receptor without reversing analgesia. Three such agents are US Food and Drug Administration approved. We reviewed the literature for randomized controlled trials that studied the efficacy of alvimopan, methylnaltrexone, and naloxegol in treating either opioid-induced constipation or postoperative ileus. Peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists may be effective in treating both opioid-induced bowel dysfunction and postoperative ileus, but definitive conclusions are not possible because of study inconsistency and the relatively low quality of evidence. Comparisons of agents are difficult because of heterogeneous end points and no head-to-head studies.

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 of treatment for pain in cancer and in palliative care, resulting in increased morbidity and reduced quality of life.This is an update of two Cochrane reviews. One was published in 2011, Issue 1 on laxatives and methylnaltrexone for the management of constipation in people receiving palliative care; this was updated in 2015 and excluded methylnaltrexone. The other was published in 2008, Issue 4 on mu-opioid antagonists (MOA) for OIBD. In this updated review, we only included trials on MOA (including methylnaltrexone) for OIBD in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of MOA for OIBD in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science to August 2017. We also searched clinical trial registries and regulatory websites. We contacted manufacturers of MOA to identify further data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness and safety of MOA for OIBD in people with cancer and people at a palliative stage irrespective of the type of terminal disease they experienced.

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 the trials. Our primary outcomes were laxation, impact on pain relief, and adverse events. Impact on pain relief was a primary outcome because a possible adverse effect of MOAs is a reduction in pain relief from opioids. We assessed the evidence on these outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four new trials for this update, bringing the total number included in this review to eight. In total, 1022 men and women with cancer irrespective of stage or at a palliative care stage of any disease were randomised across the trials. The MOAs evaluated were oral naldemedine and naloxone (alone or in combination with oxycodone), and subcutaneous methylnaltrexone. The trials compared with MOA with a placebo or with the active intervention administered at different doses or in combination with other drugs. The trial of naldemedine and the two of naloxone in combination with oxycodone were in people with cancer irrespective of disease stage. The trial on naloxone alone was in people with advanced cancer. The four trials on methylnaltrexone were undertaken in palliative care where most participants had cancer. All trials were vulnerable to biases; four were at a high risk as they involved a sample of fewer than 50 participants per arm.In the trial of naldemedine compared to placebo in 225 participants, there were more spontaneous laxations over the two-week treatment for the intervention group (risk ratio (RR) 1.93, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.36 to 2.74; moderate-quality evidence). In comparison with higher doses, lower doses resulted in fewer spontaneous laxations (0.1 mg versus 0.2 mg: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.95; 0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence). There was moderate-quality evidence that naldemedine had no effect on opiate withdrawal. There were five serious adverse events. All were in people taking naldemedine (low-quality evidence). There was an increase in the occurrence of other (non-serious) adverse events in the naldemedine groups (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.79, moderate-quality evidence). The most common adverse event was diarrhoea.The trials on naloxone taken either on its own, or in combination with oxycodone (an opioid) compared to oxycodone only did not evaluate laxation response over the first two weeks of administration. There was very low-quality evidence that naloxone alone, and moderate-quality evidence that oxycodone/naloxone, had no effect on analgesia. There was low-quality evidence that oxycodone/naloxone did not increase the risk of serious adverse events and moderate-quality evidence that it did not increase risk of adverse events.In combined analysis of two trials of 287 participants, we found methylnaltrexone compared to placebo induced more laxations within 24 hours (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.91 to 4.04. I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). In combined analysis, we found methylnaltrexone induced more laxation responses over two weeks (RR 9.98, 95% CI 4.96 to 20.09. I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). The proportion of participants who had a rescue-free laxation response within 24 hours of the first dose was 59.1% in the methylnaltrexone arms and 19.1% in the placebo arm. There was moderate-quality evidence that the rate of opioid withdrawal was not affected. Methylnaltrexone did not increase the likelihood of a serious adverse event; there were fewer in the intervention arm (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). There was no difference in the proportion of participants experiencing an adverse event (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.45; I² = 74%; low-quality evidence). Methylnaltrexone increased the likelihood of abdominal pain and flatulence.Two trials compared differing methylnaltrexone schedules of higher doses with lower doses. For early laxation, there was low-quality evidence of no clear difference between doses on analgesia and adverse events. Both trials measured laxation response within 24 hours of first dose (trial one: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.66; trial two: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.42).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this update, the conclusions for naldemedine are new. There is moderate-quality evidence to suggest that, taken orally, naldemedine improves bowel function over two weeks in people with cancer and OIBD but increases the risk of adverse events. The conclusions on naloxone and methylnaltrexone have not changed. The trials on naloxone did not assess laxation at 24 hours or over two weeks. There is moderate-quality evidence that methylnaltrexone improves bowel function in people receiving palliative care in the short term and over two weeks, and low-quality evidence that it does not increase adverse events. There is a need for more trials including more evaluation of adverse events. None of the current trials evaluated effects in children.

Opioid misuse in gastroenterology and non-opioid management of abdominal pain

Opioids were one of the earliest classes of medications used for pain across a variety of conditions, but morbidity and mortality have been increasingly associated with their chronic use. Despite these negative consequences, chronic opioid use is increasing worldwide, with the USA and Canada having the highest rates. Chronic opioid use for noncancer pain can have particularly negative effects in the gastrointestinal and central nervous systems, including opioid-induced constipation, narcotic bowel syndrome, worsening psychopathology and addiction. This Review summarizes the evidence of opioid misuse in gastroenterology, including the lack of evidence of a benefit from these drugs, as well as the risk of harm and negative consequences of opioid use relative to the brain-gut axis. Guidelines for opioid management and alternative pharmacological and nonpharmacological strategies for pain management in patients with gastrointestinal disorders are also discussed. As chronic pain is complex and involves emotional and social factors, a multimodal approach targeting both pain intensity and quality of life is best.

Drugs for Treating Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Mixed Treatment Comparison Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

CONTEXT

Opioid-induced constipation is a common problem associated with chronic use of opioid analgesics.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare available interventions for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation, using principles of network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating drugs used in opioid-induced constipation. Number of patients with rescue-free bowel movements (RFBM) was the primary outcome, and time for achieving RFBM, adverse events, and changes in the analgesic activity of the opioid analgesics were the secondary outcomes. Inverse variance heterogeneity model was used for direct and mixed treatment comparison analysis. Odds ratio for categorical outcomes and weighted mean difference for numerical outcomes were the effect estimates.

RESULTS

We included a total of 23 studies in the systematic review and 21 in the network meta-analysis. Lubriprostone, prucalopride, naldemedine, naloxegol, alvimopan, subcutaneous, and oral methyl naltrexone were observed to perform better than placebo in terms of RFBM. Additionally, subcutaneous methyl naltrexone was significantly better than lubiprostone, naloxegol, oral methyl naltrexone, and prucalopride. Lubiprostone and naldemedine were associated with increased risks of adverse events. Subcutaneous methyl naltrexone did not significantly affect the analgesia due to background opioid use. Quality of evidence for the comparisons is either low or very low.

CONCLUSION

Subcutaneous methyl naltrexone was found to perform better than other interventions for managing opioid-induced constipation.

Updates in palliative care - recent advancements in the pharmacological management of symptoms

Symptom management is an important part of both palliative care and end-of-life care. This article will examine the recent research evidence about drugs commonly used for symptom management in adult patients receiving palliative care. In particular, the management of symptoms where recent palliative care-based evidence has changed recommended practice will be reviewed. This includes: breathlessness, delirium, nausea and vomiting in bowel obstruction, opioid-induced constipation and upper respiratory tract secretions. For each symptom, a review of recent pharmacological evidence has been undertaken, with emphasis on potential important changes to physicians' practice.

Assessment and Management of Cancer Pain in Older Adults: Strategies for Success

Pain is a significant problem in older adults with cancer as older adults often receive suboptimal pain management. While overmedication can lead to adverse effects, under management of pain can lead to physiological and psychological problems such as functional decline and depression. This manuscript will discuss the assessment and management of pain in older adults, in consideration of the pharmacodynamic changes related to aging and other individual considerations. Current evidence from filtered and unfiltered sources, PubMed, current guidelines. Unrelieved pain can have a detrimental impact on older adults. A team approach is essential to assess patients at each encounter, consider the social environment in which the patient resides, and employ pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies that are evidence-based and are tailored to the specific cancer pain syndrome.

Luminally Acting Agents for Constipation Treatment: A Review Based on Literatures and Patents

Constipation is one of the most frequently reported gastrointestinal (GI) disorders that negatively impacts quality of life and is associated with a significant economic burden to the patients and society. Traditional treatments including lifestyle modification and laxatives are often ineffective in the more severe forms of constipation and over the long term. New medications targeting at intestinal chloride channels and colonic serotonin receptors have been demonstrated effective in recent years. Emerging agents focusing on improving intestinal secretion and/or colonic motility have been shown effective in animal models and even in clinical trials. Recognization of the role of cystic fibrosis transmembrane regulator (CFTR) and calcium-activated chloride channels (CaCCs) in intestine fluid secretion and motility modulation makes CFTR and CaCCs promising molecule targets for anti-constipation therapy. Although there are multiple choices for constipation treatment, there is still a recognized need for new medications in anti-constipation therapy. The present review covers the discovery of luminally acting agents for constipation treatment described in both patents (2011–present) and scientific literatures.

New opioid receptor antagonist: Naltrexone-14-O-sulfate synthesis and pharmacology

Opioid antagonists, naloxone and naltrexone have long been used in clinical practice and research. In addition to their low selectivity, they easily pass through the blood-brain barrier. Quaternization of the amine group in these molecules, (e.g. methylnaltrexone) results in negligible CNS penetration. In addition, zwitterionic compounds have been reported to have limited CNS access. The current study, for the first time gives report on the synthesis and the in vitro [competition binding, G-protein activation, isolated mouse vas deferens (MVD) and mouse colon assay] pharmacology of the zwitterionic compound, naltrexone-14-O-sulfate. Naltrexone, naloxone, and its 14-O-sulfate analogue were used as reference compounds. In competition binding assays, naltrexone-14-O-sulfate showed lower affinity for µ, δ or κ opioid receptor than the parent molecule, naltrexone. However, the μ/κ opioid receptor selectivity ratio significantly improved, indicating better selectivity. Similar tendency was observed for naloxone-14-O-sulfate when compared to naloxone. Naltrexone-14-O-sulfate failed to activate [³⁵S]GTPγS-binding but inhibit the activation evoked by opioid agonists (DAMGO, Ile^5,6deltorphin II and U69593), similarly to the reference compounds. Schild plot constructed in MVD revealed that naltrexone-14-O-sulfate acts as a competitive antagonist. In mouse colon, naltrexone-14-O-sulfate antagonized the inhibitory effect of morphine with lower affinity compared to naltrexone and higher affinity when compared to naloxone or naloxone-14-O-sulfate. In vivo (mouse tail-flick test), subcutaneously injected naltrexone-14-O-sulfate antagonized morphine's antinociception in a dose-dependent manner, indicating it's CNS penetration, which was unexpected from such zwitter ionic structure. Future studies are needed to evaluate it's pharmacokinetic profile.