A multi-institutional study analyzing effect of prophylactic medication for prevention of opioid-induced gastrointestinal dysfunction. Clin J Pain. 2012;28:373-381. [PMID: 22156893 DOI: 10.1097/ajp.0b013e318237d626]

Effect of add-on naldemedine treatment in patients with cancer and opioid-induced constipation insufficiently responding to magnesium oxide: a pooled, subgroup analysis of two randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the additive effect of naldemedine tosylate (naldemedine) on opioid-induced constipation in cancer patients insufficiently responding to magnesium oxide treatment.

METHODS

We combined two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIb and III trials of naldemedine and conducted a post hoc subgroup analysis. We evaluated the effect and safety of naldemedine in 116 patients who received naldemedine in addition to magnesium oxide (naldemedine group) and 117 patients who received placebo in addition to magnesium oxide (placebo group). Both groups included patients insufficiently responding to magnesium oxide for opioid-induced constipation. Effect was assessed using spontaneous bowel movement responder rate, complete spontaneous bowel movement responder rate, changes in spontaneous bowel movements and complete spontaneous bowel movements. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

During the 2-week treatment period, the responder rates for spontaneous bowel movement and complete spontaneous bowel movement were 73.3 and 43.1% in naldemedine group, respectively, which were significantly higher (P < 0.0001) than 41.9 and 14.5% in placebo group, respectively. Median time to first spontaneous bowel movement and first complete spontaneous bowel movement was significantly shorter (P < 0.0001) in the naldemedine group (4.0 and 21.3 h, respectively) than in the placebo group (27.7 and 211.7 h, respectively). The incidence of adverse events and diarrhoea was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in the naldemedine group than in the placebo group, while the incidence of serious adverse events and severe diarrhoea was not significantly different between the naldemedine and placebo groups.

CONCLUSION

The study suggested the addition of naldemedine as an effective treatment option for opioid-induced constipation in cancer patients insufficiently responding to magnesium oxide treatment.

Naldemedine for Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients With Cancer: A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

Opioid-induced constipation is the most frequent and non-self-limiting adverse effect of opioid analgesia, reducing adherence and interfering with pain relief. This clinical trial aimed to clarify the preventive effect of naldemedine versus placebo for constipation in patients with cancer starting regularly dosed strong opioids therapy.

METHODS

This multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, confirmatory trial was conducted between July 2021 and May 2023 at four academic hospitals in Japan (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: jRCTs031200397). Patients with cancer starting a first-time regularly dosed strong opioid for cancer pain and age 20+ years were included. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to the naldemedine (Symproic 0.2 mg) or placebo group in a 1:1 ratio for 14 days with protocol treatment. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a Bowel Function Index (BFI) of <28.8 on day 14. The secondary end points included frequency of spontaneous bowel movements (SBM), quality of life (QOL), and frequency of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV).

RESULTS

Of the 103 patients assessed for eligibility, 99 received either naldemedine (n = 49) or placebo (n = 50). A BFI of <28.8 on day 14 was significantly more likely to occur in the naldemedine group (64.6%; 95% CI, 51.1 to 78.1) versus placebo (17.0%; 95% CI, 6.3 to 27.8), and the difference between groups was 47.6% (95% CI, 30.3 to 64.8; P < .0001). The frequency of SBM, QOL, and the severity of OINV were nominally significant in the naldemedine group than in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Naldemedine prevented constipation and improved constipation-related QOL, with possible preventive effect on OINV in patients with cancer starting regularly dosed opioids therapy.

Efficacy and safety of naldemedine for opioid-induced constipation in older patients with cancer: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Opioids are pain relievers that are often associated with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) that worsens with age. We performed a multicenter, retrospective analysis on the efficacy and safety of naldemedine, an opioid receptor antagonist, in treating OIC in patients with cancer (age >75 years).

METHODS

The electronic medical records of cancer patients who received naldemedine at 10 Japanese institutions between 7 June 2017 and August 31, 2019, were retrieved. Patients aged ≥75 years who were treated with naldemedine for the first time and hospitalized for at least 7 days before and after initiating naldemedine therapy were included in this analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were observed for at least 7 days before and after starting naldemedine. The response rate was 68.3%, and the frequency of bowel movements increased significantly after naldemedine administration in the overall population ( P  < 0.0001) and among those who defecated <3 times/week before naldemedine administration ( P  < 0.0001). Diarrhea was the most frequent adverse event in all grades, observed in 45% of patients, of which 92.6% were Grade 1 or 2. Grade 4 or higher adverse events, including death, were not observed.

CONCLUSION

Naldemedine exhibits significant efficacy and safety in OIC treatment in older patients with cancer.

Analysis of Nausea and Vomiting Frequency Following Opioid Dose Escalation and Its Risk Factors: A Single-Center Retrospective Observational Study

Background and Objective: Opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) is known to develop not only upon opioid introduction but also during opioid dose escalation, but the actual details are unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency of OINV in opioid dose escalation at a single center and to identify risk factors. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the medical records of hospitalized patients with cancer who underwent increased intake of oral oxycodone extended-release tablets at Komaki City Hospital between January 2016 and December 2019 was performed. Associations between the incidence of OINV and multiple factors were analyzed, including patient demographics, opioid daily dose, comorbidities, history of nausea after opioid introduction, and prophylactic antiemetic drugs. Results: Of the 132 patients analyzed, 56 (42.4%; grades 1 and 2, 36 and 20, respectively) developed opioid-induced nausea after opioid dose escalation, 26 (19.7%; grades 1 and 2, 19 and 7, respectively) developed opioid-induced vomiting, 58 (43.9%) had either opioid-induced nausea or vomiting. Thirty-five of 60 patients (55.0%) developed OINV among those who received prophylactic antiemetic drugs at opioid dose escalation. Performance status (≥2) (odds ratio [OR]: 2.36, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.15-4.84, p = 0.02) and history of nausea for opioid introduction (OR: 2.92, 95% CI: 1.20-7.10, p = 0.02) were detected as risk factors for the development of OINV. Conclusion: This study revealed a high incidence of OINV during opioid dose escalation, indicating that careful monitoring is required as at the time of opioid introduction. Further validation by a prospective study is required.

Naldemedine and Magnesium Oxide as First-Line Medications for Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Comparative Database Study in Japanese Patients With Cancer Pain

Introduction Naldemedine and magnesium oxide are common first-line early laxative medications used in the real-world scenario in Japan, for patients with cancer pain who receive opioid prescriptions, as per a nationwide hospital claims database study. However, the real-world prescription patterns and associated outcomes are unknown. Methods In this retrospective, cohort study using the Medical Data Vision (MDV) database (January 2018 to December 2020), data were collected from eligible patients (who had a long-term prescription of strong opioids, for >30 days) in Japan with naldemedine or magnesium oxide as the first-line laxative prescription, for a long-term opioid prescription for cancer pain with ≥6 months post-opioid observation period. A laxative prescription within three days after the opioid prescription date was termed an "early" prescription. The composite incidence of dose increase or addition/change of laxatives at three months after the start of the opioid prescription was the primary endpoint after adjusting baseline characteristics between the treatment arms by propensity score matching. Results After propensity score matching, 1717 and 544 patients who were prescribed naldemedine and magnesium oxide each were included in the early prescription and non-early prescription groups, respectively. Even after matching, the incidence of death was not adjusted enough and was significantly higher in the naldemedine arm than in the magnesium oxide arm in the non-early group but comparable in the early group. The incidence of addition, change, or dose increase was significantly higher in the naldemedine arm than in the magnesium oxide arm of the early prescription group (hazard ratio (95% confidence interval), 1.08 (1.00, 1.17); p=0.0402); the incidence was comparable between the arms of the non-early group. Conclusion These findings may provide valuable insights into real-world clinical treatment patterns and preliminary evidence for the selection of first-line medications to mitigate opioid-induced constipation in Japanese patients with cancer pain.

Naldemedine-laxative combination: retrospective inpatient study

OBJECTIVES

The initiation of peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) should be considered 2 weeks after conventional laxatives have failed to achieve an adequate response, and affected patients should be evaluated every 2 weeks thereafter. However, this guidance is difficult to implement in acute care hospitals. This study aimed to examine how naldemedine (PAMORA) should be introduced in combination with other laxatives in the acute care setting.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated 93 inpatients who received at least four doses of naldemedine. We investigated changes in the average daily defecation counts during the first 7 days after compared with before naldemedine administration and the incidence of diarrhoea.

RESULTS

Daily defecation counts during the first 7 days after compared with before naldemedine administration were greater in both the naldemedine, magnesium oxide (MgO) and another laxative group, and in the naldemedine and another laxative other than MgO group than in the naldemedine only group. The incidence rates of diarrhoea were significantly higher in the naldemedine, MgO, and another laxative group, and in the naldemedine and another laxative other than MgO group than in the naldemedine only group.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of naldemedine alone or in combination with MgO should be considered.

Peripherally-active mu-opioid receptor antagonists for constipation in critically ill patients receiving opioids: A case-series and a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND

Constipation is frequent in critically ill patients, and potentially related to adverse outcomes. Peripherally-active mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) are approved for opioid-induced constipation, but information on their efficacy and safety in critically ill patients is limited. We present a single-center, retrospective, case-series of the use of naldemedine for opioid-associated constipation, and we systematically reviewed the use of PAMORAs in critically ill patients.

METHODS

Case-series included consecutive mechanically-ventilated patients; constipation was defined as absence of bowel movements for >3 days. Naldemedine was administered after failure of the local laxation protocol. Systematic review: PubMed was searched for studies of PAMORAs to treat opioid-induced constipation in adult critically ill patients.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

time to laxation, and number of patients laxating at the shortest follow-up.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

gastric residual volumes and adverse events.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 13 patients were included in the case-series; the most common diagnosis was COVID-19 ARDS. Patients had their first bowel movement 1 [0;2] day after naldemedine. Daily gastric residual volume was 725 [405;1805] before vs. 250 [45;1090] mL after naldemedine, p = 0.0078. Systematic review identified nine studies (two RCTs, one prospective case-series, three retrospective case-series and three case-reports). Outcomes were similar between groups, with a trend toward a lower gastric residual volume in PAMORAs group.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

In a highly-selected case-series of patients with refractory, opioid-associated constipation, naldemedine was safe and associated to reduced gastric residuals and promoting laxation. In the systematic review and meta-analysis, the use of PAMORAs (mainly methylnaltrexone) was safe and associated with a reduced intolerance to enteral feeding but no difference in the time to laxation.

Iatrogenic Side Effects of Pain Therapies

Pain regimens, particularly for chronic cancer and noncancer pain, must balance the important analgesic benefits against potential risks. Many effective and frequently used pain control regimens are associated with iatrogenic adverse events. Interventional procedures can be associated with nerve injuries, vascular injuries, trauma to the spinal cord, and epidural abscesses. Although rare, these adverse events are potentially catastrophic. Pharmacologic remedies for pain must also consider potential side effects that can occur even at therapeutic doses of over-the-counter remedies such as paracetamol (acetaminophen) or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Opioids are effective pain relievers but are associated with many side effects, some of which can be treatment limiting. A prevalent and distressing side effect of opioid therapy is constipation. Opioid-induced constipation is caused by binding to opioid receptors in the gastrointestinal system, making conventional laxatives ineffective. Peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists are a new drug class that offers the benefits of preserving opioid analgesia without side effects in the gastrointestinal system. An important safety concern, particularly among geriatric patients is the increasingly prevalent condition of polypharmacy. Many senior patients take five or more medications, including some that may be contraindicated in geriatric patients, duplicative of other drugs, have potential pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions, or may not be the optimal choice for the patient's age and condition. Careful assessment of medications in the elderly, including possibly deprescribing with tapering of certain drugs, may be warranted but should be done systematically and under clinical supervision.

Analysis of the economic burden of docusate sodium at a United States tertiary care center

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to determine the financial resources allocated to docusate at a representative U.S. tertiary care center. Secondary objectives included comparing docusate utilization between two tertiary care centers, and exploring alternative uses for the funds spent on docusate.

METHODS

The study population included all patients 18 years and older admitted to University Hospital in Newark, New Jersey. Every scheduled docusate prescription for the study population between January 1st, 2015 and December 31st, 2019 was collected. The annual total cost associated with docusate use per year was calculated. The 2015 data from this study and a 2015 McGill University Health Centre study were compared. Also, alternative uses for the money utilized on docusate were assessed.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 37,034 docusate prescriptions and 265,123 docusate doses were recorded. The average cost of prescribing docusate was $25,624.14 per year and $49.37 per hospital bed per year. A comparison between the 2015 data of University Hospital and McGill showed that McGill prescribed 107 doses and spent $10.09 more per hospital bed than University Hospital. Finally, alternative uses for the average yearly spending on docusate equated to 0.35 the salary of a nurse, 0.51 the salary of a secretary, 20.66 colonoscopies, 27.00 upper endoscopies, 186.71 mammograms, 1,399.37 doses of polyethylene glycol 3350, 3,826.57 doses of lactulose, or 4,583.80 doses of psyllium.

CONCLUSION

A single average size tertiary care hospital spent about $25,000 yearly on docusate despite its lack of clinical effectiveness. While this amount is small compared to an overall hospital budget, when considering likely comparable docusate use at the U.S's 6,090 hospitals, the economic burden of docusate becomes significant. The funds currently being used on docusate could be redirected to alternative, more cost-effective purposes.

A Nationwide Hospital Claims Database Analysis of Real-World Patterns of Laxative Use for Opioid-Induced Constipation in Japanese Patients with Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is one of the most common side effects in patients with cancer treated with opioid analgesics. The actual use of laxatives for OIC in Japan remains unelucidated. This study aimed to investigate the real-world patterns of laxative use for patients with cancer who newly initiated opioid analgesic therapy.

METHODS

We used a Japanese nationwide hospital claims database (January 2018-December 2019). Patients with cancer newly receiving opioid analgesic therapy were included and classified on the basis of opioid classes (weak or strong) and route of administration (oral or transdermal) at initiation. The patients were divided into two groups on the basis of whether they received early medication (starting laxatives within 3 days after initiating opioid analgesic therapy), and patterns of laxative use were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 26,939 eligible patients, with 50.7% of them initiated with strong opioids. The proportion of patients who received early medication was 25.0% for weak opioids and 57.3% for strong opioids. Osmotic laxatives were most frequently used as first-line therapy in the early medication group (oral weak opioids: 12.3%, oral strong opioids: 29.4%, transdermal strong opioids: 12.8%). Stimulant laxatives were frequently used as first-line therapy, to the same extent or more than osmotic laxatives in the non-early medication group (oral weak opioids: 13.7%, oral strong opioids: 7.7%, transdermal strong opioids: 15.1%). Peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists were the second most frequently used in the early medication group for those on oral strong opioids (9.4%).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated for the first time that the patterns of laxative use for OIC in Japanese patients with cancer were different, depending on the opioid types at initiation and the timing of laxative medication.

Efficacy and Safety of Naldemedine Administration for Opioid-Induced Constipation in Cancer Patients with Poor Performance Status

Background: Constipation is a concern among patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 3 and 4. Objectives: To assess naldemedine's efficacy and safety in cancer patients on opioids with poor PS. Design: Multicenter, retrospective study. Setting/Subjects: Japanese cancer patients with ECOG performance status 3 or 4 who received naldemedine. Measurements: Frequency of defecations before/after naldemedine use. Responders were patients whose defecation frequency increased to ≥3 times/week, from baseline ≥1 defecations/week over seven days after naldemedine administration. Results: Seventy-one patients were analyzed; 66.1% were responders (95% confidence interval: 54.5%-76.1%). Defecation frequency increased significantly after naldemedine in the overall population (6 vs. 2, p < 0.0001) and among those who defecated <3 times/week before naldemedine (4.5 vs. 1, p < 0.0001). Diarrhea (38.0%) of all grades was the most common adverse event; 23 (85.2%) events were classified as Grade 1 or 2. Conclusion: Naldemedine is effective and safe among cancer patients with poor PS.

Magnesium hydroxide versus macrogol/electrolytes in the prevention of opioid-induced constipation in incurable cancer patients: study protocol for an open-label, randomized controlled trial (the OMAMA study)

BACKGROUND

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a common symptom in cancer patients treated with opioids with a prevalence of up to 59%. International guidelines recommend standard laxatives such as macrogol/electrolytes and magnesium hydroxide to prevent OIC, although evidence from randomized controlled trials is largely lacking. The aim of our study is to compare magnesium hydroxide with macrogol /electrolytes in the prevention of OIC in patients with incurable cancer and to compare side-effects, tolerability and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

Our study is an open-label, randomized, multicenter study to examine if magnesium hydroxide is non-inferior to macrogol/electrolytes in the prevention of OIC. In total, 330 patients with incurable cancer, starting with opioids for pain management, will be randomized to treatment with either macrogol/electrolytes or magnesium hydroxide. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients with a score of < 30 on the Bowel Function Index (BFI), measured on day 14. The Rome IV criteria for constipation, side effects of and satisfaction with laxatives, pain scores, quality of life (using the EQ-5D-5L), daily use of laxatives and escape medication, and cost-effectiveness will also be assessed.

DISCUSSION

In this study we aim to examine if magnesium hydroxide is non-inferior to macrogol/electrolytes in the prevention of OIC. The outcome of our study will contribute to prevention of OIC and scientific evidence of guidelines on (opioid-induced) constipation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05216328 and in the Dutch trial register: NTR80508. EudraCT number 2022-000408-36.

A Retrospective Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Naldemedine for Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients with Hepatobiliary Pancreatic Cancer

Background and Objectives: Opioid analgesics, which are used for cancer-related pain management, cause opioid-induced constipation (OIC). Naldemedine, a peripheral opioid receptor antagonist, is an OIC-modifying agent, but no focused efficacy and safety analysis has been conducted for its use in hepatobiliary pancreatic cancers. We performed a multi-institutional study on the efficacy and safety of naldemedine in patients with hepatobiliary pancreatic cancer using opioids in clinical practice. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients with hepatobiliary pancreatic cancer (including liver, biliary tract, and pancreatic cancers) treated with opioids and naldemedine during hospitalization at ten institutions in Japan from June 2017 to August 2019. We assessed the frequency of bowel movements before and after the initiation of naldemedine therapy. Responders were defined as patients who defecated ≥3 times/week, with an increase from a baseline of ≥1 defecations/week over seven days after the initiation of naldemedine administration. Results: Thirty-four patients were observed for one week before and one week after starting naldemedine. The frequency of bowel movements increased by one over the baseline frequency or to at least thrice per week in 21 patients. The response rate was 61.7% (95% confidence interval: 45.4–78.0%). The median number of weekly bowel movements before and after naldemedine treatment was 2 (range: 0–9) and 6 (range: 1–17), respectively, in the overall population (n = 34); the increase in the number of bowel movements following naldemedine administration was statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p < 0.0001). Diarrhea was the predominant gastrointestinal symptom, and 10 (29.4%) patients experienced grade 1, grade 2, or grade 3 adverse events. The only other adverse event included fatigue in one patient; grade 2–4 adverse events were absent. Conclusions: Naldemedine is effective, and its use may be safe in clinical practice for patients with hepatobiliary pancreatic cancer receiving opioid analgesics.

Bisacodyl overcomes morphine-induced constipation by decreasing colonic Aquaporin-3 and Aquaporin-4 expression

Introduction: Morphine is an opioid prescribed to treat aches and pains. However, morphine often causes opioid-induced constipation (OIC). Aquaporin (AQP) transporters, especially AQP3 and AQP4, play an essential role in mediating constipation. Bisacodyl is a common laxative used to treat constipation. To date, the effects of bisacodyl on AQP3 and AQP4 expression and the role this interaction plays in constipation are unclear. This study aimed to determine the effects of bisacodyl on AQP3 and AQP4 expression in mice after induction of constipation with morphine.

Materials and methods: The laxative effects of bisacodyl on both acute and chronic morphine-induced constipation were determined. Fecal water content, colonic bead expulsion, and colonic mRNA levels for AQP3 and AQP4 mRNA were measured.

Results and discussion: The administration of morphine to mice resulted in decreased fecal water content, longer bead expulsion times, and increased AQP3 and AQP4 mRNA levels in the colon. Meanwhile, bisacodyl administration prevented the morphine-induced changes in fecal water content, bead expulsion time, and AQP3 and AQP4 mRNA levels in the colons of mice.

Conclusion: This study suggests that bisacodyl may prevent morphine-induced constipation by preventing morphine-induced increases in AQP3 and AQP4 expression in the colon.

Graphical abstract:

Rationale and design of a multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to investigate the effects of naldemedine on opioid-induced constipation for patients with cancer pain: A study protocol

Background

It is unclear which laxatives are appropriate to prevent opioid-induced constipation (OIC). This study will evaluate whether prophylactic use of naldemedine prevents OIC in patients with cancer who start opioid administration.

Methods

This study is a multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Patients who meet the eligibility criteria and give consent will be randomly assigned to the naldemedine or placebo group. Both groups will take each drug once a day after breakfast for 14 days.

Results

The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with a Bowel Function Index of less than 28.8 on Day 14. The secondary endpoints include assessment scales of the impact of constipation on comprehensive quality of life.

Conclusions

This is the first study proposed to assess the superiority of naldemedine over placebo in the prevention of OIC. If naldemedine is found to be effective in reducing OIC compared with the placebo, it will be regarded as a new standard for OIC prophylaxis at opioid initiation.

Trial registration

jRCT identifier: jRCTs031200397. Registered March 5, 2021, https://rctportal.niph.go.jp/en/detail?trial_id=jRCTs031200397.

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.

Effectiveness of Naldemedine Compared with Magnesium Oxide in Preventing Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Simple Summary

Opioids are used in cancer pain management, however, their continuous use may not be tolerable owing to adverse effects such as constipation, sleepiness, nausea, and respiratory depression. Opioid-induced constipation reduces the quality of life of patients, and osmotic laxatives are conventionally recommended for preventing opioid-induced constipation. Recently, naldemedine, a peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonist, can be used to safely and effectively treat opioid-induced constipation based on its etiological mechanism, without affecting central analgesia. In this study, we compared the effectiveness of magnesium oxide with that of naldemedine in preventing opioid-induced constipation. Naldemedine significantly prevented deterioration in the quality of defecation (the Japanese Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life and complete spontaneous bowel movement) and reduced gastrointestinal adverse effects, mainly nausea, compared with magnesium oxide during 12-week administration.

Abstract

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) may occur in patients receiving opioid treatment, decreasing their quality of life (QOL). We compared the effectiveness of magnesium oxide (MgO) with that of naldemedine (NAL) in preventing OIC. This proof-of-concept, randomized controlled trial (registration number UMIN000031891) involved 120 patients with cancer scheduled to receive opioid therapy. The patients were randomly assigned and stratified by age and sex to receive MgO (500 mg, thrice daily) or NAL (0.2 mg, once daily) for 12 weeks. The change in the average Japanese version of Patient Assessment of Constipation QOL (JPAC-QOL) from baseline to 2 weeks was assessed as the primary endpoint. The other endpoints were spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) and complete SBMs (CSBMs). Deterioration in the mean JPAC-QOL was significantly lower in the NAL group than in the MgO group after 2 weeks. There were fewer adverse events in the NAL group than in the MgO group. Neither significant differences in the change in SBMs between the groups nor serious adverse events/deaths were observed. The CSBM rate was higher in the NAL group than in the MgO group at 2 and 12 weeks. In conclusion, NAL significantly prevented deterioration in constipation-specific QOL and CSBM rate compared with MgO.

Constipation in Cancer Patients - an Update of Clinical Evidence

OPINION STATEMENT

Constipation is one of the most frequent problems in cancer patients, and its etiology is multifactorial. It leads to decreased quality of life and impedes optimal pain treatment. Despite the high prevalence, constipation is frequently underdiagnosed mainly because of lack of validated diagnostic criteria or widely accepted definition of constipation in cancer patients. All cancer patients should be evaluated regularly for constipation, and concomitant causes and risk factors were assessed. Opioids are responsible for a much of the secondary constipation in cancer patients. The management of constipation in cancer patients should be multifaceted, addressing dietary and behavioral issues and optimizing pharmacological interventions. Prevention of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is pivotal, as treatment is often unsatisfactory or inefficient. Dietary and behavioral interventions should be considered. Non-pharmacological measures include hydration and nutrition, ensuring privacy during defecation, using a commode or footstool, and the availability of a caregiver. Abdominal massage may be of value. Traditional laxatives are recommended in prevention but not in the treatment of OIC. Peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORA) appear the first choice in the treatment and an alternative to laxatives in some recent clinical practice guidelines in preventing OIC. Naldemedine, naloxegol, and methylnaltrexone are supported by quality evidence for OIC management. Naloxone or naltrexone, taken orally in combined formulations with opioids, may be valuable in preventing or reducing OIC symptoms.

Reducing Opioid-Induced Constipation Post-Cardiac Surgery: An Improvement Project in a Pediatric Cardiac Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Pain management with opioids and underutilization of prophylaxis for constipation can prolong a patient's hospital length of stay and impede pain management efforts.

PROBLEM

In pediatric postoperative cardiac patients, opioid therapy is a common approach to pain management but often places them at greater risk for constipation due to anatomy and age.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 50 patients' medical records for baseline data was conducted, and a survey evaluated providers' current knowledge and practice.

INTERVENTIONS

The intervention was an electronic order set that provided decision support. Additionally, prophylactic measures were supported by a validated assessment tool that created a common language to report constipation risk.

RESULTS

Although not statistically significant, postintervention data demonstrated a 21.5% decrease in postoperative constipation and a 57% increase in ordered bowel regimens.

CONCLUSION

More focus is needed toward prophylactic bowel regimens to reduce the risk in this already high-risk population.

Analysis of Predictive Factors for Diarrhea after the Administration of Naldemedine

Naldemedine (NAL), a peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonist, is effective for opioid-induced constipation (OIC). However, diarrhea is the most common adverse event. We investigated the incidence of NAL-induced diarrhea in patients who started NAL at Nagasaki University Hospital between June 2017 and March 2019. Predictors of NAL-induced diarrhea were analyzed using a multivariate logistic regression model. Two hundred and forty-two patients were included in the present study, and NAL-induced diarrhea was observed in 17.8% (43 patients). The results of multiple logistic regression analyses identified the administration of opioid analgesics for 8 d or longer before the initiation of NAL (odds ratio (OR): 2.20, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.04-4.64, p = 0.039), the combination of a laxative (OR: 2.22, 95%CI: 1.03-4.81, p = 0.042), and the combination of CYP3A4 inhibitors (strong/moderate) (OR: 2.80, 95%CI: 1.02-7.67, p = 0.045) as risk factors. Therefore, the development of diarrhea needs to be considered in patients with these risk factors. Furthermore, diarrhea may be controlled by the initiation of NAL within 7 d of opioid analgesics and, where possible, the discontinuation of or change in the combination of moderate or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors.

Effect of Prophylactic Anti-emetics on Opioid-induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The guidelines on pharmacotherapy for cancer-related pain advocate active measures against the adverse effects of opioids to increase adherence to medication. However, preventative therapy for the management of nausea and vomiting has not been specified. This study aimed to verify the effects of prophylactic anti-emetics in preventing opioid-induced nausea and vomiting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of cases at our hospital in which oral opioids or patches were initiated for the management of pain due to malignant tumours from January 2017 to September 2019.

RESULTS

Strong opioids were initiated for 349 patients; of these, data for 298 patients were analysed. A total of 193 patients were on anti-emetic prophylaxis. We found that the group that did not receive anti-emetic prophylaxis was significantly more likely to be prescribed an additional anti-emetic.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic administration of anti-emetics at the time of initiating opioid analgesics may reduce gastrointestinal toxicity.

Construction of a Risk Prediction Model of Extended Release Oxycodone Tablet-Induced Nausea and Clarification of Predictive Factors

Nausea is a typical adverse event associated with opioids. In this study, we performed logistic regression analysis with the aim of clarifying the risk factors for nausea induced by extended-release oxycodone (ER-OXY). Furthermore, we constructed a decision tree (DT) model, a typical data mining method, to estimate the risk of oxycodone-induced nausea by combining multiple factors. A retrospective study was conducted on patients who newly received ER-OXY for cancer pain during hospitalization at Hokkaido University Hospital in Japan from April 2015 to March 2018. In logistic regression and DT analyses, the dependent variable was the presence or absence of nausea. Independent variables were the potential risk factors. First, univariate analyses were performed to screen potential factors associated with oxycodone-induced nausea. Then, multivariate and DT analyses were performed using factors with p-values <0.1 in the univariate analysis. Of 267 cases included in this study, nausea was observed in 30.3% (81/267). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, only female sex was extracted as an independent factor affecting nausea (odds ratio, 1.98). In the DT analysis, we additionally revealed that an age <50 years was a risk factor for nausea in female patients. Thus, our DT model indicated that the risk of ER-OXY-induced nausea was highest in the subgroup comprising females <50 years of age (66.7%) and lowest in male patients (25.1%). The DT model suggested that the factor of young women may be an increased risk of ER-OXY-induced nausea.

Creating a bowel management plan for pediatric orthopaedic spine surgery patients

PURPOSE

Opioid-induced constipation is a common problem in patients who have undergone surgery. No standard gastrointestinal protocol exists to manage perioperative care in pediatric orthopaedic spinal fusion patients despite data which support the need for a bowel regimen while a patient is taking narcotics. At our institution, this group of patients often present to the emergency department with constipation and other gastrointestinal complaints. We developed a quality improvement initiative to create a standardized bowel management plan for pediatric patients undergoing orthopaedic spine surgery to decrease constipation, thus improving care, and minimizing unplanned visits.

METHODS

We developed a bowel management plan in collaboration with the gastroenterology team, created an Epic Smart Phrase for discharge instructions to enhance compliance, and created and dispersed informational communication on changes to constipation management. We monitored compliance, emergency department visits, and re-admissions.

RESULTS

Compliance with the bowel management plan, including inpatient medication prescribing and discharge "at-home" education, has increased to a mean of 93%. Emergency Department (ED) visits or re-admissions for constipation were reduced from a baseline mean of 1 in every 11 cases, to 1 in every 184 cases. Our institution sustained more than 2 years without an ED visit or readmission related to constipation in this patient population after the bowel management plan was in place.

CONCLUSION

A bowel management plan can be used in the care of pediatric spinal fusion patients to increase patient safety, decrease healthcare burden, and improve care. This project not only increased awareness of post-surgical gastrointestinal symptoms and opioid side effects, but also decreased post-operative emergency department visits and re-admissions related to constipation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, case control study.

Predictive Factors of Opioid-Induced Nausea in Cancer Patients

Approximately 30% of patients experience nausea after initiation of opioid therapy, which can lead to poor quality of life. We aimed to identify risk factors for opioid-induced nausea at the initiation of opioid therapy by conducting a retrospective review of medical records of patients diagnosed by palliative care specialists with solid cancer and pain at the lesion site at Showa University Hospital between June 2005 and June 2011. The primary endpoint was the development of nausea grade ≥1 according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 within 48 hours of initiation of opioid therapy. The median age of the 134 enrolled patients was 67.7 (range 28-95) years. Fifty-three percent were male and 44% had gastrointestinal cancer. Furthermore, 22.4% had opioid-induced nausea. Age (odds ratio (OR) 1.74; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13-2.69), edema (OR 5.83; 95% CI, 1.22-28.19), and gastrointestinal cancer (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.07-6.36) were significantly associated with opioid-induced nausea. Prophylactic antiemetics were found to be ineffective.

Effect of lubiprostone on vinca alkaloid-induced constipation in patients with hematological malignancies: a propensity score-matched analysis

Patients receiving vinca alkaloids for hematological malignancies frequently experience constipation that is unresponsive to laxatives. Research on treatment of vinca alkaloid-induced constipation is limited. This study aimed to determine whether the chloride channel activator lubiprostone ameliorates vinca alkaloid-induced constipation in patients with hematological malignancies. In this retrospective cohort study, vinca alkaloid-induced constipation (grade ≥ 3 using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) was investigated in patients treated for hematological malignancies between July 2014 and June 2019 who had already been prescribed osmotic laxatives and additionally received either a stimulant laxative or lubiprostone. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the risk factors for persistent constipation after introduction of the second laxative. A propensity score model was used to match 67 patients taking a stimulant laxative and 67 treated with lubiprostone, and the occurrence of intractable constipation was compared between groups. Overall, 203 patients were included, among whom 50 (25%) had constipation. On multivariate analysis, body mass index, opioid use, and addition of lubiprostone were independently associated with constipation. Patients treated with lubiprostone were significantly less likely to experience intractable constipation than did those treated with stimulant laxatives (10% vs. 34%, P = 0.002). Moreover, post-constipation diarrhea was significantly less frequent among patients treated with lubiprostone (42% vs. 63%, P = 0.024). Lubiprostone was more effective than stimulant laxatives at treating vinca alkaloid-induced intractable constipation in patients with hematological malignancies, and its use could enable safe vinca alkaloid chemotherapy.

Comparing the effectiveness of magnesium oxide and naldemedine in preventing opioid-induced constipation: a proof of concept, single institutional, two arm, open-label, phase II, randomized controlled trial: the MAGNET study

Background

Patients taking opioids are known to develop opioid-induced constipation (OIC), which reduces their quality of life. The aim of this study is to compare magnesium oxide with naldemedine and determine which is more effective in preventing OIC.

Methods

This proof-of-concept, prospective, randomized controlled trial commenced in Japan in March 2018. Initially, a questionnaire-based survey will be conducted targeting adult patients with cancer who concomitantly commenced opioid treatment and OIC prevention treatment. Patients will then be randomly allocated to a magnesium oxide group (500 mg thrice daily) or a naldemedine group (0.2 mg once daily). Each drug will be orally administered for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint is defined as any improvement in scores on the Japanese version of Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life questionnaire (JPAC-QOL) from baseline to 2 weeks of treatment.

Discussion

The primary endpoint is change in JPAC-QOL score from baseline to 2 weeks of intervention. The key secondary endpoint will be change in spontaneous bowel movements at 2 and 12 weeks of intervention. This study will determine whether magnesium oxide or naldemedine is more effective for the prevention of OIC.

Trial registration

University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN000031891. Registered March 25, 2018.

Should Antiemetics be Given Prophylactically with Intravenous Opioids While Treating Acute Pain in the Emergency Department?: Clinical Practice Paper Approved by American Academy of Emergency Medicine Clinical Guidelines Committee

BACKGROUND

It is common practice for emergency physicians to give parenteral opioids for acute pain, however, some treating physicians have concerns that using parenteral opioids can lead to nausea and vomiting when used alone. Therefore, antiemetics are often given prophylactically with opioids for nausea and vomiting in the emergency department (ED). This systematic review evaluates the use of prophylactic antiemetics with parenteral opioids for the treatment of acute pain in the ED.

METHODS

A 10-year literature search using keywords was performed in PubMed for English-language human studies. Abstracts were screened to identify high-quality studies, which then underwent a more rigorous structured review. The recommendations are made based on the literature review.

RESULTS

Eight articles met criteria for structured review and citation in this article. These include one review article, two randomized controlled trials, three prospective observational trials, one retrospective study, and one pre- and post-intervention trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the literature review, routine use of prophylactic antiemetics are not indicated with administration of parenteral opioids for treatment of acute pain in the ED, as nausea and vomiting are infrequent side effects. The recent literature clearly demonstrates that there are potential undesirable side effects from the use of antiemetics when using opioids. However, one subgroup of patients, those with a known history of nausea and vomiting after opioid use or a history of travel sickness, may benefit from the use of prophylactic antiemetic when being treated with parenteral opioids.

Prevention and management of diarrhea associated with naldemedine among patients receiving opioids: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Naldemedine, a novel peripherally-acting mu-opioid receptor antagonist, has improved opioid-induced constipation in randomized controlled trials. The most frequent adverse event of naldemedine is diarrhea, which can cause abdominal pain and often leads to treatment discontinuation. We aimed to identify risk factors and appropriate management strategies for key adverse events including diarrhea associated with naldemedine, since those have not been extensively studied.

METHODS

We conducted a multi-center retrospective cohort study. Eligible patients had cancer, had undergone palliative care at participating centers, had been prescribed regular opioids, and had taken at least one dose of naldemedine between June 2017 and March 2018. The primary endpoint was the incidence of diarrhea according to baseline characteristics. Secondary endpoints included the duration of naldemedine administration, daily defecation counts before and after starting naldemedine, duration and severity of diarrhea as an adverse event of naldemedine, other adverse events, and the incidence of constipation within 7 days after recovery from diarrhea. We defined patients who started naldemedine within three days of starting a regularly prescribed opioid as the early group, and the remainder as the late group.

RESULTS

Among 103 patients who received naldemedine, 98 fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The median age was 68 years and 48% of the patients were female. Median performance status was 3, and the median oral intake was 50%. The median duration of naldemedine administration and overall survival were 25 and 64 days, respectively. The incidence of diarrhea in the early group (n = 26) was significantly lower than in the late group (n = 72) (3.9% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.02). Daily defecation counts increased after late (median 0.43 to 0.88, p < 0.001), but remained stable after early naldemedine administration (median 1.00 to 1.00, p = 0.34). Constipation after the diarrhea was resolved was common (53%), especially among patients who stopped naldemedine (78%). The diarrhea was improved within three days in 92% of patients who stopped other laxatives.

CONCLUSIONS

The early administration of naldemedine is beneficial because it reduces adverse events including diarrhea. Diarrhea caused by naldemedine can be effectively managed by stopping other laxatives while continuing naldemedine.

Incidence of opioid-induced constipation in Japanese patients with cancer pain: A prospective observational cohort study

This multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study assessed opioid induced constipation (OIC) in Japanese patients with cancer. Eligible patients had stable cancer and an ECOG PS of 0-2. OIC incidence based on the Rome IV diagnostic criteria was determined by patient diary entries during the first 14 days of opioid therapy. The proportion of patients with OIC was calculated for each 1-week period and the overall 2-week study period. Secondary measurements of OIC included the Bowel Function Index (BFI) score (patient assessment administered by physician), spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) per week (patient assessment), and physician assessments. Medication for constipation was allowed. Two hundred and twenty patients were enrolled. The mean morphine-equivalent dose was 22 mg/day. By Rome IV criteria, the cumulative incidence of OIC was 56% (95% CI: 49.2%-62.9%); week 1, 48% (95% CI: 40.8%-54.6%); week 2, 37% (95% CI: 30.1%-43.9%). The cumulative incidence of OIC was lower in patients who received prophylactic agents for constipation (48% [95% CI: 38.1%-57.5%]) than in patients who did not (65% [95% CI: 55.0%-74.2%]). The cumulative incidences of OIC were 59% (95% CI: 51.9%-66.0%), 61% (95% CI: 54.3%-68.1%), and 45% (95% CI: 38.0%-51.8%) based on BFI scores, physician assessments, and SBM frequency, respectively. Frequency of BMs/week before starting opioids was the most influential factor for the occurrence of OIC. Utilization of prophylactic agents for constipation was associated with a modest effect on reducing the incidence of OIC. The incidences of OIC reported were variable depending on the diagnostic tool involved.

Effects of Magnesium Oxide on the Serum Duloxetine Concentration and Antidepressant-Like Effects of Duloxetine in Rats

Duloxetine is a serotonin/noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor that is used as an antidepressant. However, it is known to cause constipation as a side effect. Magnesium compounds, such as magnesium oxide and magnesium hydroxide aqueous solution, are often combined with duloxetine to ameliorate the constipation caused by duloxetine. However, there is concern that these magnesium compounds might alter the effects of duloxetine via physicochemical interactions. In this study, we attempted to clarify the interactions that take place between duloxetine and magnesium oxide using in vivo and in vitro experiments. We evaluated the influence of magnesium oxide on in vitro duloxetine concentrations using HPLC. In addition, we examined the in vivo antidepressant-like effects and serum concentrations of duloxetine in rats. In the in vitro experiment, the duloxetine concentration was significantly decreased by co-treatment with magnesium oxide. In the in vivo experiment, the antidepressant-like effects of duloxetine were not affected by the combined oral administration of magnesium oxide and a duloxetine formulation although the serum duloxetine level was significantly decreased. However, the antidepressant-like effects of a duloxetine reagent were significantly attenuated by the co-administration of magnesium oxide. These results suggest that duloxetine and magnesium oxide directly interact and that such interactions affect the absorption and antidepressant-like effects of duloxetine.

Clinical Overview and Considerations for the Management of Opioid-induced Constipation in Patients With Chronic Noncancer Pain

OBJECTIVES

Opioid analgesics may be associated with chronic adverse effects, such as opioid-induced constipation (OIC). Available and emerging prescription medications for OIC in patients with chronic noncancer pain are described, including concerns and challenges associated with OIC management.

METHODS

Narrative review.

RESULTS

OIC is characterized by a change in bowel habits and defecation patterns that occurs when initiating opioid therapy and is associated with reduced bowel frequency, straining, sensation of incomplete evacuation, and/or patient distress related to bowel habits. Prescription medications are indicated when OIC persists despite conservative approaches (eg, increased fiber and fluid intake, exercise, over-the-counter laxatives and stool softeners). Phase 3 studies have demonstrated the efficacy of peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORA; methylnaltrexone, naloxegol, naldemedine), and a chloride channel activator (lubiprostone) for improving OIC in patients with chronic noncancer pain. Although head-to-head studies are lacking, a meta-analysis demonstrated that μ-opioid receptor antagonists were more effective than placebo for the treatment of OIC. The most common adverse effects associated with prescription medications for OIC are gastrointestinal related (eg, nausea, diarrhea, abdominal pain, or distention), with most being mild or moderate in severity. Therapy currently in development for OIC includes the PAMORA axelopran.

DISCUSSION

Health care providers should be aware of this complication in patients receiving opioids and should monitor and address constipation-related symptoms to optimize pain management and improve patient quality of life.

Pathophysiology and management of opioid-induced constipation: European expert consensus statement

Background

Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction is a complication of opioid therapy, in which constipation is the most common and problematic symptom. However, it is frequently under-recognised and thus effective management is often not instituted despite a number of treatment options.

Objective

The central objective of this study is to provide a summary of the pathophysiology and clinical evaluation of opioid-induced constipation and to provide a pragmatic management algorithm for day-to-day clinical practice.

Methods

This summary and the treatment algorithm is based on the opinion of a European expert panel evaluating current evidence in the literature.

Results

The pathophysiology of opioid-induced constipation is multi-faceted. The key aspect of managing opioid-induced constipation is early recognition. Specific management includes increasing fluid intake, exercise and standard laxatives as well as addressing exacerbating factors. The Bowel Function Index is a useful way of objectively evaluating severity of opioid-induced constipation and monitoring response. Second-line treatments can be considered in those with recalcitrant symptoms, which include gut-restricted or peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists. However, a combination of interventions may be needed.

Conclusion

Opioid-induced constipation is a common, yet under-recognised and undertreated, complication of opioid therapy. We provide a pragmatic step-wise approach to opioid-induced constipation, which should simplify management for clinicians.

Prophylactic use of antiemetics for prevention of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting: a survey about Italian physicians' practice

PURPOSE

Antiemetics are being used both for the treatment and prophylaxis of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) in clinical practice, despite the lack of evidence for the prophylactic benefit. Studies among Japanese physicians demonstrated over 80% prescribe antiemetics, with neuroleptic antipsychotics as the most commonly prescribed drugs. Our objective was to elucidate the current scenario of the prophylactic use of antiemetics for OINV among Italian physicians.

METHODS

We conducted a web-based cross-sectional national survey. All the invited participants received an e-mail with an 11-item electronic questionnaire accessible through a direct link. Anonymity was guaranteed. According to the exploratory intent of the survey, we did not predefine any formal statistical hypothesis. Associations between variables were tested by the Pearson chi-square or the Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

From January to March 2017, 112 completed the electronic questionnaire (112/256, overall response rate, 43.7%). Nearly half of the participants were oncologists (54; 48.2%). Sixty-one (54.4%) physicians worked in palliative care units. About 45% of the interviewed prescribed prophylactic antiemetics at the beginning of opioid prescription. The most commonly chosen drugs for this purpose were prokinetics such as metoclopramide and domperidone (84%), followed by 5-HT3 antagonists (8%), neuroleptic antipsychotics (6%), and corticosteroids (2%). Ninety-one physicians (81%) declared to prescribe antiemetics at the occurrence of OINV, mainly prokinetics (N = 70; 77%).

CONCLUSION

Italian physicians do not commonly prescribe prophylactic antiemetics for OINV. Unlike previously reported data, dopamine antagonists resulted the most commonly prescribed drugs. Prospective clinical trials are necessary to evaluate the real efficacy of this practice.

High-Intensity Bowel Protocol for Trauma Patients

BACKGROUND

Internal performance improvement data showed extended length of stay (LOS) in addition to an increased number of patients with constipation. This study was designed to evaluate the number of hospital days a trauma patient with opioid use had a bowel movement (BM) utilizing a high-intensity bowel protocol compared with the standard hospital bowel protocol.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of the trauma registry at a Level I trauma center from 2 different time periods to assess the number of hospital days that patients had a BM. These patients had a traumatic mechanism of injury that required admission to the hospital with a LOS equivalent to 3 or more days. Other data analyzed included age, gender, injury severity score (ISS), morphine equivalents (ME), and hospital days with a BM.

RESULTS

A total of 282 patients were included in the final analysis. Group 1 represented the standard hospital bowel protocol (n = 166), and Group 2 represented the high-intensity bowel protocol (n = 116). No significant difference was calculated between age, gender, ISS, or ME per day. A significant difference was observed with the number of hospital days with a BM between these 2 groups. The group with the high-intensity bowel protocol exhibited more days with a BM than the standard bowel protocol group (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

The high-intensity bowel protocol averaged 1 BM every 2 days, whereas the standard hospital bowel protocol averaged 1 BM every 3 days. There was no significant change in LOS.

The Efficacy and Safety of Transcutaneous Acupoint Interferential Current Stimulation for Cancer Pain Patients With Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

Introduction. Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a principal complication secondary to analgesic therapy for cancer pain patients who suffer moderate to severe pain. In this study, we observe the efficacy and safety of transcutaneous acupoint interferential current (IFC) stimulation in those patients with OIC. Methods. A total of 198 patients were randomly allocated to the IFC group and control group in a 1:1 ratio. Finally, 98 patients in the IFC group received 14 sessions administered over 2 weeks, whereas 100 patients in the control group took lactulose orally during the same period. Observation items were documented at management stage and at follow-up stage according to Cleveland Constipation Scales (CCS), pain Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) and Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QoL). Results. The total curative effects of the IFC group and the control group were indistinguishable (76.5% vs 70.0%, P = .299). Regarding CCS and PAC-QoL scores, no significant difference was observed between the 2 groups during the management time and at the follow-up stage of week 3 (P > .05, respectively), but groups were distinguished at the follow-up stage of week 4 (P < .001 and P = .031, respectively). The pain NRS decreased significantly at management stage week 2 and follow-up stage week 3 and week 4 (P = .013, P = .041, P = .011, respectively). Conclusions. Transcutaneous acupoint IFC therapy over acupoints of Tianshu (ST25) and Zhongwan (RN12) may improve constipation and quality of life in cancer patients receiving opiates; further studies are worthwhile.

Efficacy of Prophylactic Treatment for Oxycodone-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Among Patients with Cancer Pain (POINT): A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Trial

BACKGROUND

Although opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) often result in analgesic undertreatment in patients with cancer, no randomized controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of prophylactic antiemetics for preventing OINV. We conducted this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic treatment with prochlorperazine for preventing OINV.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cancer patients who started to receive oral oxycodone were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either prochlorperazine 5 mg or placebo prophylactically, given three times daily for 5 days. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had a complete response (CR) during the 120 hours of oxycodone treatment. CR was defined as no emetic episode and no use of rescue medication for nausea and vomiting during 5 days. Key secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with emetic episodes, proportion of patients with moderate or severe nausea, quality of life, and proportion of treatment withdrawal.

RESULTS

From November 2013 through February 2016, a total of 120 patients were assigned to receive prochlorperazine (n = 60) or placebo (n = 60). There was no significant difference in CR rates (69.5% vs. 63.3%; p = .47) or any secondary endpoint between the groups. Patients who received prochlorperazine were more likely to experience severe somnolence (p = .048).

CONCLUSION

Routine use of prochlorperazine as a prophylactic antiemetic at the initiation of treatment with opioids is not recommended. Further research is needed to evaluate whether other antiemetics would be effective in preventing OINV in specific patient populations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Prophylactic prochlorperazine seems to be ineffective in preventing opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) and may cause adverse events such as somnolence. Routine use of prophylactic prochlorperazine at the initiation of treatment with opioids is not recommended. Further research is needed to evaluate whether other antiemetics would be effective in preventing OINV in specific patient populations.

Opioid-Induced Constipation and Bowel Dysfunction: A Clinical Guideline

OBJECTIVE

To formulate timely evidence-based guidelines for the management of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction.

SETTING

Constipation is a major untoward effect of opioids. Increasing prescription of opioids has correlated to increased incidence of opioid-induced constipation. However, the inhibitory effects of opioids are not confined to the colon, but also affect higher segments of the gastrointestinal tract, leading to the coining of the term "opioid-induced bowel dysfunction."

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, and EMBASE Classic, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Predefined search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria were used to identify and categorize relevant papers. A series of statements were formulated and justified by a comment, then labeled with the degree of agreement and their level of evidence as judged by the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) system.

RESULTS

From a list of 10,832 potentially relevant studies, 33 citations were identified for review. Screening the reference lists of the pertinent papers identified additional publications. Current definitions, prevalence, and mechanism of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction were reviewed, and a treatment algorithm and statements regarding patient management were developed to provide guidance on clinical best practice in the management of patients with opioid-induced constipation and opioid-induced bowel dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

In recent years, more insight has been gained in the pathophysiology of this "entity"; new treatment approaches have been developed, but guidelines on clinical best practice are still lacking. Current knowledge is insufficient regarding management of the opioid side effects on the upper gastrointestinal tract, but recommendations can be derived from what we know at present.

Daily Electronic Health Record Reports Meet Meaningful Use Requirements, Improve Care Efficiency, and Provide a Layer of Safety for Trauma Patients

The electronic health record (EHR) is frequently viewed as a government-mandated charting system. As simply a replacement for the paper record, however, it was also frequently found to be inconvenient and a distraction to patient care. Broader use of the technology inherent in the EHR in the form of daily reports focused on key information that allows trauma clinical teams to efficiently monitor important information such as specific laboratory results or medications that might be missed or overlooked. In addition, other clinical personnel can monitor and assist in the care of trauma patients from remote locations such as an administrative office. Implementation of EHR reports is feasible, can be easily adopted by the clinical team, and has the potential to promote quality, safety, and efficiency. In addition, this innovation satisfies many of the requirements for meaningful use.

Opioids and GI Motility-Friend or Foe?

OPINION STATEMENT

The use of opioids for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain is growing at an alarming rate. Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OBD) is a common adverse effect of long-term opioid treatment manifesting as constipation, nausea, and vomiting. These effects are primarily mediated by peripheral μ-opioid receptors with resultant altered GI motility and function. As a result, patients may present with opioid-induced constipation (OIC), opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV), and/or narcotic bowel syndrome (NBS). This often leads to decreased quality of life and in many cases, discontinuation of opioid therapy. There is limited evidence to support the use of traditional anti-emetics and laxatives in the treatment of OBD. Tapering the dose of opioids, switching to transdermal application, opioid rotation, or dual-action opioids, such as tapentadol, may be helpful in the treatment of OBD. Novel agents, such as peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists which target the cause of OIC, show promise in the treatment of OBD and should be considered when conventional laxatives fail. This chapter will review the pathophysiology of OBD, including OINV and OIC, and treatment options available.

Factors Associated With the Prophylactic Prescription of a Bowel Regimen to Prevent Opioid-Induced Constipation

OBJECTIVE

Identify factors associated with the prophylactic prescription of a bowel regimen with an inpatient opioid prescription.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study from June 1, 2013, to October 31, 2014 of pediatric inpatients prescribed an oral or intravenous opioid on the general medical/surgical floors. We identified patients with or without a prophylactic prescription of a bowel regimen. We obtained patient demographics, prescriber training level and service and used multivariate logistic regression to analyze the factors associated with prophylactic bowel regimen and opioid prescription.

RESULTS

Of the 6682 encounters that met study criteria, only 966 (14.5%) encounters had prophylactic prescriptions. Patient factors associated with prophylactic prescription include increasing age (per year; odds ratio [OR] = 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.07) and sickle cell diagnosis (OR = 3.19, 95% CI 2.08-4.91). Medication factors associated with prophylactic prescription include a scheduled opioid prescription (OR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.46-2.1) and a prescription for oxycodone (OR = 3.59, 95% CI 2.57-5.00) or morphine (OR = 1.84, 95% CI 1.39-2.44), compared with acetaminophen-hydrocodone. Compared with medical providers, surgeons were less likely (OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.35-0.53) and pain service providers were more likely to prescribe a prophylactic bowel regimen (OR = 4.12, 95% CI 3.13-5.43).

CONCLUSIONS

More than 85% of inpatient opioid prescriptions did not receive a prophylactic bowel regimen. Future research should examine factors (eg, clinical decision support tools) to increase prophylactic prescription of bowel regimens with opioids for populations found to have lower rates.

Antacid attenuates the laxative action of magnesia in cancer patients receiving opioid analgesic

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to investigate pharmacological interaction between magnesium laxative and antacid in patients receiving opioid analgesic.

METHODS

Data obtained from a total of 441 eligible patients receiving opioid analgesic for the first time were retrospectively analysed. The incidence of constipation, defined as stool-free interval of 3 days and more within the first week of opioid intake, was compared between patients who took laxative alone and those who received laxative in combination with antacid.

KEY FINDINGS

Laxatives were prescribed in 74% of patients, among them 61% received antacids such as proton pump inhibitor and H2 receptor blocker. Magnesia was the most commonly used laxative (89%). Constipation occurred in 21% and 55% of patients with and without laxatives, respectively. Antacids reversed the laxative action of lower doses (<2000 mg/day) but not higher doses (>2000 mg/day) of magnesia without affecting the effects of other laxatives. Therefore, it is suggested that both acid-dependent and acid-independent mechanisms may operate in the laxative action of magnesia, in which the former may be involved in the action of lower doses of magnesia.

CONCLUSION

Care should be taken to avoid the unfavourable pharmacological interaction between low doses of magnesia and antacid.

Opioid-induced constipation

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a very troublesome, difficult to manage and a nearly universal complication of chronic opioid use to control pain associated with advanced illness. Some studies have reported that OIC is so intolerable in some patients that they skip their opioid medications and bear pain instead of OIC. Laxatives have commonly been used as a prophylaxis and treatment of OIC but they are frequently ineffective because the commonly available laxatives do not target the underlying mechanism of OIC, which is the blockade of peripheral mu-receptors. Recently, there have been a number of advances in the treatment of OIC, which any physician involved with opioid-prescribing discipline should be aware of. This review will update the new options and strategies available for treating OIC along with the relevant clinical trials. Finally, this review also provides a recommendation on the preferred way to approach a patient with OIC in the modern era as well as highlight on the importance of doctor-patient communication in this setting.

Definition, diagnosis and treatment strategies for opioid-induced bowel dysfunction–Recommendations of the Nordic Working Group

Background and aims

Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is an increasing problem due to the common use of opioids for pain worldwide. It manifests with different symptoms, such as dry mouth, gastro-oesophageal reflux, vomiting, bloating, abdominal pain, anorexia, hard stools, constipation and incomplete evacuation. Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is one of its many symptoms and probably the most prevalent. The current review describes the pathophysiology, clinical implications and treatment of OIBD.

Methods

The Nordic Working Group was formed to provide input for Scandinavian specialists in multiple, relevant areas. Seven main topics with associated statements were defined. The working plan provided a structured format for systematic reviews and included instructions on how to evaluate the level of evidence according to the GRADE guidelines. The quality of evidence supporting the different statements was rated as high, moderate or low. At a second meeting, the group discussed and voted on each section with recommendations (weak and strong) for the statements.

Results

The literature review supported the fact that opioid receptors are expressed throughout the gastrointestinal tract. When blocked by exogenous opioids, there are changes in motility, secretion and absorption of fluids, and sphincter function that are reflected in clinical symptoms. The group supported a recent consensus statement for OIC, which takes into account the change in bowel habits for at least one week rather than focusing on the frequency of bowel movements. Many patients with pain receive opioid therapy and concomitant constipation is associated with increased morbidity and utilization of healthcare resources. Opioid treatment for acute postoperative pain will prolong the postoperative ileus and should also be considered in this context. There are no available tools to assess OIBD, but many rating scales have been developed to assess constipation, and a few specifically address OIC. A clinical treatment strategy for OIBD/OIC was proposed and presented in a flowchart. First-line treatment of OIC is conventional laxatives, lifestyle changes, tapering the opioid dosage and alternative analgesics. Whilst opioid rotation may also improve symptoms, these remain unalleviated in a substantial proportion of patients. Should conventional treatment fail, mechanism-based treatment with opioid antagonists should be considered, and they show advantages over laxatives. It should not be overlooked that many reasons for constipation other than OIBD exist, which should be taken into consideration in the individual patient.

Conclusion and implications

It is the belief of this Nordic Working Group that increased awareness of adverse effects and OIBD, particularly OIC, will lead to better pain treatment in patients on opioid therapy. Subsequently, optimised therapy will improve quality of life and, from a socio-economic perspective, may also reduce costs associated with hospitalisation, sick leave and early retirement in these patients.