Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of Oral Methylnaltrexone for the Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients with Chronic Noncancer Pain

Insights into the Current and Possible Future Use of Opioid Antagonists in Relation to Opioid-Induced Constipation and Dysbiosis

Opioid receptor agonists, particularly those that activate µ-opioid receptors (MORs), are essential analgesic agents for acute or chronic mild to severe pain treatment. However, their use has raised concerns including, among others, intestinal dysbiosis. In addition, growing data on constipation-evoked intestinal dysbiosis have been reported. Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) creates an obstacle to continuing treatment with opioid analgesics. When non-opioid therapies fail to overcome the OIC, opioid antagonists with peripheral, fast first-pass metabolism, and gastrointestinal localized effects remain the drug of choice for OIC, which are discussed here. At first glance, their use seems to only be restricted to constipation, however, recent data on OIC-related dysbiosis and its contribution to the appearance of several opioid side effects has garnered a great of attention from researchers. Peripheral MORs have also been considered as a future target for opioid analgesics with limited central side effects. The properties of MOR antagonists counteracting OIC, and with limited influence on central and possibly peripheral MOR-mediated antinociception, will be highlighted. A new concept is also proposed for developing gut-selective MOR antagonists to treat or restore OIC while keeping peripheral antinociception unaffected. The impact of opioid antagonists on OIC in relation to changes in the gut microbiome is included.

Management of Constipation in Hospitalized Patients

Constipation is frequently encountered in hospital settings and can have potentially serious consequences yet is often underrecognized and undertreated. Opioid-induced constipation is a common cause of constipation in hospitalized patients. Opioids induce constipation through agonistic effects on enteric µ-opioid receptors. This review aims to provide insight on the identification and management of constipation in inpatient settings, with a particular focus on opioid-induced constipation. Constipation assessment should be routinely initiated at hospital admission and can be facilitated by thorough symptom assessments; relevant patient history, including recent medication use; physical examination; and patient assessment tools developed to evaluate the impact of constipation. Management of opioid-induced constipation should begin with ensuring adequate hydration and electrolyte balance and encouraging patient mobilization. Other treatments may include laxatives, enemas, intestinal secretagogues, peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists, and manual disimpaction. Surgical intervention may be required for some patients as a salvage therapy in severe, refractory cases.

Methylnaltrexone Treatment for Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients with and without Cancer: Effect of Initial Dose

Purpose

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a common side effect of opioid therapy. Methylnaltrexone (MNTX) is a selective, peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonist, with demonstrated efficacy in treating OIC. We pooled results from MNTX clinical trials to compare responses to an initial dose in patients with chronic cancer and noncancer pain.

Patients and Methods

This post hoc analysis used pooled data from 3 randomized, placebo-controlled studies of MNTX in patients with advanced illness with OIC. Assessments included the proportions of patients achieving rescue-free laxation (RFL) within 4 and 24 hours of the first study drug dose, time to RFL, current and worst pain intensity, and adverse events, stratified by the presence/absence of cancer.

Results

A total of 355 patients with cancer (MNTX n = 198, placebo n = 157) and 163 without active cancer (MNTX n = 83; placebo n = 80) were included. More patients treated with MNTX compared with those who received placebo achieved an RFL within 4 (cancer: MNTX, 61.1% vs placebo,15.3%, p<0.0001; noncancer: MNTX, 62.2% vs placebo, 17.5%, p<0.0001) and 24 hours (cancer: MNTX, 71.2% vs placebo, 41.4%, p<0.0001; noncancer: MNTX, 74.4% vs placebo, 37.5%, p<0.0001) of the initial dose. Cumulative RFL response rates within 4 hours of the first, second, or third dose of study drug were also higher in MNTX-treated patients. The estimated time to RFL was shorter among those who received MNTX and similar in cancer and noncancer patients. Mean pain scores declined similarly in all groups. The most common adverse events in both cancer and noncancer patients were abdominal pain, flatulence, and nausea.

Conclusion

After the first dose, MNTX rapidly induced a laxation response in the majority of both cancer and noncancer patients with advanced illness. Opioid-induced analgesia was not compromised, and adverse events were primarily gastrointestinal in nature. Methylnaltrexone is a well-tolerated and effective treatment for OIC in both cancer and noncancer patients.

Cumulative Laxation Response with Methylnaltrexone: Implications for Hospitalized Patients with Advanced Illness and Opioid-Induced Constipation

Background

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) may increase the risk of fecal impaction and mortality in patients with advanced illness. Methylnaltrexone (MNTX) is efficacious for OIC.

Objective

The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate cumulative rescue-free laxation response with repeat MNTX dosing in patients with advanced illness who were refractory to current laxative regimens and to assess the influence, if any, of poor functional status on response to MNTX treatment.

Methods

This analysis included pooled data from patients with advanced illness and established OIC who were on a stable opioid regimen in a pivotal, randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled clinical trial (study 302 [NCT00402038]) or a randomized, PBO-controlled Food and Drug Administration-required postmarketing study (study 4000 [NCT00672477]). Patients in study 302 received subcutaneous MNTX 0.15 mg/kg or PBO every other day, whereas those in study 4000 received MNTX 8 mg (body weight ≥38 to <62 kg), MNTX 12 mg (body weight ≥62 kg), or PBO every other day. Outcomes included cumulative rescue-free laxation rates at 4- and 24-hours postdose for the first 3 doses of study drug and time to rescue-free laxation. To assess if functional status influenced treatment outcomes, we performed a secondary analysis on the outcomes stratified by baseline World Health Organization/Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, pain scores, and safety.

Results

One hundred eighty-five patients received PBO and 179 patients received MNTX. The median age was 66.0 years, 51.5% were women, 56.5% had a baseline World Health Organization/Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score >2, and 63.4% had a primary diagnosis of cancer. Cumulative rescue-free laxation rates were significantly higher with MNTX than PBO 4- and 24-hours after doses 1, 2, and 3 (P < 0.0001), and between-treatment comparisons remained significant (P < 0.0001) regardless of performance status. The estimated time to first rescue-free laxation was shorter for patients receiving MNTX versus PBO. No new safety signals were identified.

Conclusions

Repeated use of MNTX represents a safe and effective treatment for OIC in patients with advanced illness regardless of baseline performance status. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00672477. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2023; 84:XXX-XXX)© 2023 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc.

Reductions in All-Cause Mortality Associated with the Use of Methylnaltrexone for Opioid-Induced Bowel Disorders: A Pooled Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Preclinical and clinical studies suggest that activation of the µ-opioid receptor may reduce overall survival and increase the risk for all-cause mortality in patients with cancer and noncancer pain. Methylnaltrexone, a selective, peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonist, has demonstrated efficacy for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation. This retrospective analysis of 12 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of methylnaltrexone evaluated the treatment of opioid-induced bowel disorders in patients with advanced illness or noncancer pain.

METHODS

The risk of all-cause mortality within 30 days after the last dose of study medication during the double-blind phase was compared between methylnaltrexone and placebo groups. The data were further stratified by cancer vs noncancer, age, gender, and acute vs chronic diagnoses.

RESULTS

Pooled data included 2,526 methylnaltrexone-treated patients of which 33 died, and 1,192 placebo-treated patients of which 35 died. The mortality rate was 17.8 deaths/100 person-years of exposure in the methylnaltrexone group and 49.5 deaths/100 person-years of exposure for the placebo group. The all-cause mortality risk was significantly lower among patients receiving methylnaltrexone compared with placebo (hazard ratio: 0.399, 95% confidence interval: 0.25, 0.64; P = .0002), corresponding to a 60% risk reduction. Significant risk reductions were observed for those receiving methylnaltrexone who had cancer or chronic diagnoses. Methylnaltrexone-treated patients had a significantly reduced mortality risk compared with placebo regardless of age or gender.

CONCLUSIONS

Methylnaltrexone reduced all-cause mortality vs placebo treatment across multiple trials, suggesting methylnaltrexone may confer survival benefits in patients with opioid-induced bowel disorders taking opioids for cancer-related or chronic noncancer pain.

Effects of Electroacupuncture on Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients With Cancer: Study Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is one of the most prevalent adverse events associated with cancer patients who receive opioid analgesics for moderate to severe pain. Acupuncture may be an effective treatment for OIC. We designed this trial to assess the efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture for OIC in cancer patients.

Methods

This is a multicenter, sham-controlled, parallel-group, subject- and assessor-blinded randomized trial. A total of 100 cancer patients with OIC will be randomly assigned to either the electroacupuncture group or the sham electroacupuncture group at a ratio of 1:1. Patients in each group will receive a total of 24-session treatment over 8 weeks, three sessions a week and 30 min each session. Thereafter, patients will be followed up for another 8 weeks. The primary outcome will be the proportion of responders, defined as a patient who has ≥3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs)/wk and ≥ increase of 1 SBM from baseline simultaneously for at least 6 out of 8 weeks of the treatment period. The secondary outcomes will include the mean weekly SBMs and complete spontaneous bowel movements, the mean Bristol Stool Form Scale score for stool consistency, the mean score for straining of SBM, the total and subscale scores of Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptom questionnaires, and the total and subscale scores of Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life questionnaire. Patients' global assessment of treatment effectiveness, patients' expectation toward the effectiveness of acupuncture and safety of acupuncture will also be assessed. All efficacy analyses will be performed in the intention-to-treat population.

Discussion

To improve the adherence to intervention protocols, the majority of the participants will be recruited from an inpatient setting. The results will help to determine the clinical effects and safety of electroacupuncture for the treatment of OIC among patients with cancer.

Clinical Trial Registration

www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03797586, registered on 4 January 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03797586.

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.

Opioid-Related Constipation

Opioid-related constipation encompasses constipation directly caused by opioid use (opioid-induced constipation [OIC]) as well as pre-existing constipation worsened by opioid use (opioid-exacerbated constipation [OEC]). Over-the-counter laxatives should be used as first-line agents for both OIC and OEC, given their efficacy, low cost, and high safety profiles. Symptoms of OIC and responses to therapy can be assessed with the Bowel Function Index. Individuals with OIC refractory to laxatives may be responsive to peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists. Although data supporting the superiority of one prescription agent over another is lacking, all have proven effective for the treatment of OIC.

Attrition of methylnaltrexone treatment-emergent adverse events in patients with chronic noncancer pain and opioid-induced constipation: a post hoc pooled analysis of two clinical trials

Background: Opioids prescribed for the management of chronic noncancer pain are associated with nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Methylnaltrexone, a peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonist, has demonstrated robust efficacy and was well-tolerated in treating opioid-induced constipation without affecting central analgesia. Our objective was to assess changes in the frequency of adverse events after the first or second dose of methylnaltrexone or placebo.

Methods: This post hoc analysis pooled data from two randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials assessing methylnaltrexone for opioid-induced constipation in the outpatient setting. Patients received subcutaneous methylnaltrexone (12 mg once daily or 12 mg once every other day), oral methylnaltrexone (150, 300, or 450 mg daily), or placebo. Adverse events, opioid withdrawal symptoms, pain intensity, and rescue-free bowel movements (RFBMs) within 4 hours of the first dose (i.e., RFBM responders) were assessed. Associations between adverse event frequencies and RFBM response were also evaluated.

Results: The analysis included 1263 adult patients with chronic noncancer pain. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates declined from treatment day 1 to 2 (methylnaltrexone: 16.2%–5.3%; placebo: 6.6%−5.4%). Among methylnaltrexone-treated patients, significantly greater proportions of RFBM responders versus nonresponders reported gastrointestinal adverse events on day 1. No associations between RFBM response and the frequency of adverse events were observed in the placebo group. No meaningful changes in opioid withdrawal symptoms or pain intensity were observed.

Conclusions: Early-onset adverse events following methylnaltrexone treatment, particularly gastrointestinal adverse events, are at least partially due to laxation. Methylnaltrexone treatment effectively relieves opioid-induced constipation without affecting the central analgesic effects of opioids.

Attrition of methylnaltrexone treatment-emergent adverse events in patients with chronic noncancer pain and opioid-induced constipation: a post hoc pooled analysis of two clinical trials

Background: Opioids prescribed for the management of chronic noncancer pain are associated with nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Methylnaltrexone, a peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonist, has demonstrated robust efficacy and was well-tolerated in treating opioid-induced constipation without affecting central analgesia. Our objective was to assess changes in the frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) after the first or second dose of methylnaltrexone or placebo. Methods: This post hoc analysis pooled data from two randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials assessing methylnaltrexone for opioid-induced constipation in the outpatient setting. Patients received subcutaneous methylnaltrexone (12 mg once daily or 12 mg once every other day), oral methylnaltrexone (150, 300, or 450 mg daily), or placebo. TEAEs, opioid withdrawal symptoms, pain intensity, and rescue-free bowel movements (RFBMs) within 4 hours of the first dose (i.e., RFBM responders) were assessed. Associations between TEAE frequencies and RFBM response were also evaluated. Results: The analysis included 1263 adult patients with chronic noncancer pain. TEAE rates declined from treatment day 1 to 2 (methylnaltrexone: 16.2%-5.3%; placebo: 6.6%-5.4%). Among methylnaltrexone-treated patients, significantly greater proportions of RFBM responders versus nonresponders reported gastrointestinal TEAEs on day 1. No associations between RFBM response and the frequency of TEAEs were observed in the placebo group. No meaningful changes in opioid withdrawal symptoms or pain intensity were observed. Conclusions: Early-onset TEAEs following methylnaltrexone treatment, particularly gastrointestinal TEAEs, are at least partially due to laxation. Methylnaltrexone treatment effectively relieves opioid-induced constipation without affecting the central analgesic effects of opioids.

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.

The Influence of Age on Central Effects of Methylnaltrexone in Patients with Opioid-Induced Constipation

Background

Methylnaltrexone, a peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation (OIC), has restricted diffusion across the blood–brain barrier (BBB) and has not been demonstrated to impact opioid-induced central analgesia. Age-related changes in BBB permeability may compromise methylnaltrexone’s restricted diffusion and alter opioid-induced central analgesic effects.

Objective

This analysis evaluated whether opioid analgesia is compromised in older adults receiving methylnaltrexone for OIC.

Methods

The analysis included adults diagnosed with OIC who received opioids for pain management and who had a terminal illness or chronic nonmalignant pain. Data were pooled from four randomized, double-blind trials and stratified by age (< 65 years and ≥ 65 years). Endpoints included pain intensity scores, symptoms of opioid withdrawal, treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and rescue-free laxation (RFL) within 4 h of treatment.

Results

Overall, 1323 patients were < 65 years of age (n = 908, methylnaltrexone; n = 415, placebo) and 304 patients were ≥ 65 years of age (n = 171, methylnaltrexone; n = 133, placebo). Nonsignificant pain intensity score reductions were observed in all groups. In the older cohort, measures of opioid withdrawal did not show statistical differences from baseline in either the methylnaltrexone or placebo groups. The most frequently reported TRAEs were abdominal pain, flatulence, and nausea. Relative to the first dose, gastrointestinal TRAEs potentially related to opioid withdrawal declined with the second dose and were comparable with placebo, regardless of age. RFL response within 4 h of methylnaltrexone treatment increased significantly in both age cohorts relative to placebo.

Conclusions

Methylnaltrexone use did not adversely affect pain control, opioid withdrawal effects, or AEs while providing effective RFL, regardless of age. These results suggest that age does not appear to influence the safety and efficacy of methylnaltrexone for OIC. Further research is needed to assess the impact of other factors that alter BBB permeability, such as dementia, stroke, or drug interactions, on the safety and efficacy of methylnaltrexone.

Clinical Trial Registration Numbers

Study 302, NCT00402038; study 3200K1-4000, NCT00672477; study 3200K1-3356, NCT00529087; study 3201, NCT01186770.

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.

A Case-Based Approach to Constipation in Primary Care

Primary care physicians frequently evaluate patients with constipation. The history is crucial in uncovering warning symptoms and signs that warrant colonoscopy. Particular elements in the history and rectal examination also can provide clues regarding the underlying etiology. Regardless of etiology, lifestyle modifications, fiber, and laxatives are first-line therapies. Patients who fail first-line therapies can be offered second-line treatments and/or referred for testing of defecatory function. In those with severely refractory symptoms, referrals to a gastroenterologist and a surgeon should be considered.

Management of Opioid-Induced and Non-Opioid-Related Constipation in Patients With Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to inform the development of national clinical practice guidelines on the management of cancer constipation.

LITERATURE SEARCH

PubMed®, Wiley Cochrane Library, and CINAHL® were searched for studies published from May 2009 to May 2019.

DATA EVALUATION

Two investigators independently reviewed and extracted data from eligible studies. The Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool was used, and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.

SYNTHESIS

For patients with cancer and opioid-induced constipation, moderate benefit was found for osmotic or stimulant laxatives; small benefit was found for methylnaltrexone, naldemedine, and electroacupuncture. For patients with cancer and non-opioid-related constipation, moderate benefit was found for naloxegol, prucalopride, lubiprostone, and linaclotide; trivial benefit was found for acupuncture.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Effective strategies for managing opioid-induced and non-opioid-related constipation in patients with cancer include lifestyle, pharmacologic, and complementary approaches.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL CAN BE FOUND AT&NBSP;HTTPS

//bit.ly/3c4yewT.

ONS Guidelines™ for Opioid-Induced and Non-Opioid-Related Cancer Constipation

PURPOSE

This evidence-based guideline intends to support clinicians, patients, and others in decisions regarding the treatment of constipation in patients with cancer.

METHODOLOGIC APPROACH

An interprofessional panel of healthcare professionals with patient representation prioritized clinical questions and patient outcomes for the management of cancer-related constipation. Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the evidence and make recommendations.

FINDINGS

The panel agreed on 13 recommendations for the management of opioid-induced and non-opioid-related constipation in patients with cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

The panel conditionally recommended a bowel regimen in addition to lifestyle education as first-line treatment for constipation. For patients starting opioids, the panel suggests a bowel regimen as prophylaxis. Pharmaceutical interventions are available and recommended if a bowel regimen has failed. Acupuncture and electroacupuncture for non-opioid-related constipation are recommended in the context of a clinical trial.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL CAN BE FOUND AT&NBSP;HTTPS

//bit.ly/30y29sI.

Efficacy and Safety of Peripherally Acting Mu-Opioid Receptor Antagonists for the Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation (OIC).

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched for OIC therapy comparing PAMORAs with placebo. Both a pairwise and network meta-analysis were performed. The surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) was used to determine the efficacy and safety of OIC treatment using different PAMORAs.

RESULTS

The primary target outcome was a response that achieves an average of three or more bowel movements (BMs) per week. In the network meta-analysis, four PAMORAs (naldemedine, naloxone, methylnaltrexone, and alvimopan) showed a better BM response than the placebo. Naldemedine was ranked first (odds ratio [OR] = 2.8, 95% credible interval [CrI] = 2-4.5, SUCRA = 89.42%), followed by naloxone (OR = 2.9, 95% CrI = 1.6-5.3, SUCRA = 87.44%), alvimopan (OR = 2.2, 95% CrI = 1.3-3.5, SUCRA = 68.02%), and methylnaltrexone (OR = 1.7, 95% CrI = 1.0-2.8, SUCRA = 46.09%). There were no significant differences in safety found between the PAMORAs and the placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that PAMORAs are effective and can be safely used for the treatment of OIC. In network meta-analysis, naldemedine and naloxone appear to be the most effective PAMORAs for the treatment of OIC.

Onset of action of naldemedine in the treatment of opioid-induced constipation in patients with chronic noncancer pain: results from 2 randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials

Naldemedine improves opioid-induced constipation in a timely manner in patients using opioids for noncancer pain; most experienced spontaneous bowel movement within 24 hours of treatment.

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a common side effect of chronic opioid therapy. Previously, naldemedine, a peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonist demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of OIC. In this exploratory analysis, the onset of action of naldemedine was evaluated in 2 identically designed phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Proportion of patients experiencing a spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) within 24 hours of treatment initiation, time from initial dose to first SBM and weekly SBM frequency were assessed. Naldemedine was associated with significant increases in the proportion of patients experiencing an SBM at 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours after the initial dose compared with placebo (all P < 0.0001). Within 24 hours in both studies, statistically significantly (P < 0.0001) more patients treated with naldemedine compared with placebo experienced an SBM (61.2% vs 28.3% and 56.5% vs 33.6%, respectively). Median times to first SBM were significantly shorter in the naldemedine group vs placebo (COMPOSE-1, 16.1 vs 46.7 hours; COMPOSE-2, 18.3 vs 45.9 hours; P < 0.0001). Naldemedine was also associated with significant increases in weekly SBM frequency vs placebo within 1 week (P < 0.001). Most common treatment-emergent adverse events were gastrointestinal-related (abdominal pain, diarrhea, and nausea). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported most frequently on day 1, followed by a decrease from days 2 to 7. Naldemedine had a timely onset of effect, and gastrointestinal adverse events largely resolved within the first week. These findings should assist clinicians counseling patients with chronic noncancer pain on expectations when initiating naldemedine for OIC.

Low-dose methadone for refractory chronic migraine accompanied by medication-overuse headache: a prospective cohort study

Objectives

A refractory chronic migraine (RCM) accompanied by medication-overuse headache (MOH) is an extremely disabling disease. Evidence suggests that in selected patients, chronic opioids may be a valuable therapeutic option for RCM. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of prophylaxis with low-dose methadone (LDM) in patients affected by RCM with continuous headache and MOH.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was performed between May 2012 and November 2015 at the Headache Center and Toxicology Unit of the Careggi University Hospital. Eligible patients were treated with prophylactic LDM and followed up for 12 months. Headache exacerbations, pain intensity, use of rescue medications, and occurrence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were recorded.

Results

Thirty patients (24 females, median age 48 years) were enrolled. Nineteen (63%) patients dropped out, mainly because of early ADRs (n = 10), including nausea, vomiting, and constipation. At last available follow-up, LDM was associated with a significant decrease in the number of headache attacks/month (from a median of 45 (interquartile range 30–150) to 16 (5–30), p < 0.001), in pain intensity (from 8.5 (8–9) to 5 (3–6), p < 0.001), and in the number of rescue medications consumed per month (from 95 (34–240) to 15 (3–28), p < 0.001). No misuse or diversion cases were observed.

Conclusion

LDM could represent a valuable and effective option in selected patients affected by RCM with continuous headache and MOH, although the frequency of early ADRs poses major safety concerns. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of LDM prophylaxis.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: efficacy and safety of treatments for opioid-induced constipation

BACKGROUND

When opioid-induced constipation is treated with centrally acting opioid antagonists, there may be opioid withdrawal or aggravation of pain due to inhibition of μ-opioid analgesia. This led to the development of peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs).

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of available PAMORAs and other approved or experimental treatments for relieving constipation in patients with opioid-induced constipation, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and EBM Reviews Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was completed in July 2019 for randomised trials compared to placebo. FDA approved doses or highest studied dose was evaluated. Efficacy was based on diverse endpoints, including continuous variables (the bowel function index, number of spontaneous bowel movements and stool consistency based on Bristol Stool Form Scale), or responder analysis (combination of >3 spontaneous bowel movements or complete spontaneous bowel movements plus 1 spontaneous bowel movement or complete spontaneous bowel movements, respectively, over baseline [so-called FDA endpoints]). Adverse effects evaluated included central opioid withdrawal, serious adverse events, abdominal pain and diarrhoea.

RESULTS

We included 35 trials at low risk of bias enrolling 13 566 patients. All PAMORAs demonstrated efficacy on diverse patient response endpoints. There was greater efficacy with approved doses of the PAMORAs (methylnaltrexone, naloxegol and naldemidine), with lower efficacy or lower efficacy and greater adverse effects with combination oxycodone with naloxone, lubiprostone and linaclotide.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic response in opioid-induced constipation is best achieved with the PAMORAs, methylnaltrexone, naloxegol and naldemidine, which are associated with low risk of serious adverse events.

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.

Subcutaneous methylnaltrexone for opioid-induced constipation in advanced-illness patients with or without active cancer

Aim: To evaluate methylnaltrexone for opioid-induced constipation in patients with and without cancer. Methods: This post hoc analysis comprises two Phase III, multicenter, double-blind, randomized studies of advanced-illness patients who received methylnaltrexone subcutaneous injection or placebo. Results: Significantly more patients treated with methylnaltrexone than placebo experienced laxation within 4 (cancer = 55.5 vs 15.5%; noncancer = 55.6 vs 12.8%) and 24 (cancer = 64.7 vs 29.8%; noncancer = 64.4 vs 30.8%) h after the first dose (p < 0.01 vs placebo). Regardless of cancer status, methylnaltrexone reduced median time to laxation and improved constipation relief without impacting opioid analgesia or withdrawal symptoms. Conclusion: Methylnaltrexone provided significant improvements in opioid-induced constipation over placebo in advanced-illness patients with and without cancer. Clinical trial registration numbers: study 301: NCT00401362; study 302: NCT00402038.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2017

This paper is the fortieth consecutive installment of the annual anthological review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, summarizing articles published during 2017 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides and receptors as well as effects of opioid/opiate agonists and antagonists. The review is subdivided into the following specific topics: molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors (1), the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia in animals (2) and humans (3), opioid-sensitive and opioid-insensitive effects of nonopioid analgesics (4), opioid peptide and receptor involvement in tolerance and dependence (5), stress and social status (6), learning and memory (7), eating and drinking (8), drug abuse and alcohol (9), sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (10), mental illness and mood (11), seizures and neurologic disorders (12), electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (13), general activity and locomotion (14), gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (15), cardiovascular responses (16), respiration and thermoregulation (17), and immunological responses (18).

Opioid-Induced Constipation in Oncological Patients: New Strategies of Management

OPINION STATEMENT

Cancer-associated pain has traditionally been treated with opioid analgesics, often in escalating doses. Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a common problem associated with chronic use of opioid analgesics. Typical treatment strategies to alleviate constipation are based on dietary changes, exercise, and laxatives. However, laxatives have a nonspecific action and do not target underlying mechanisms of OIC. This article will review prevalent, clinical presentation and recommendations for the treatment of OIC. An independent literature search was carried out by the authors. We reviewed the literature for randomized controlled trials that studied the efficacy of laxatives, naloxone, and naloxegol in treating OIC. Newer strategies addressing the causal pathophysiology of OIC are needed for a more effective assessment and management of OIC. Finally, traditional recommended therapies are appraised and compared with the latest pharmacological developments. Future research should address whether naloxegol is more efficacious by its comparison directly with first-line treatments, including laxatives.

Adult Cancer Pain, Version 3.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

In recent years, the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Adult Cancer Pain have undergone substantial revisions focusing on the appropriate and safe prescription of opioid analgesics, optimization of nonopioid analgesics and adjuvant medications, and integration of nonpharmacologic methods of cancer pain management. This selection highlights some of these changes, covering topics on management of adult cancer pain including pharmacologic interventions, nonpharmacologic interventions, and treatment of specific cancer pain syndromes. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Adult Cancer Pain addresses additional aspects of this topic, including pathophysiologic classification of cancer pain syndromes, comprehensive pain assessment, management of pain crisis, ongoing care for cancer pain, pain in cancer survivors, and specialty consultations.

Implications of the Opioid Epidemic for the Clinical Gastroenterology Practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The opioid epidemic in the USA has led to a rise in opioid-related gastrointestinal (GI) side effects that are often difficult to diagnose and treat. The aim of this report is to discuss opioid pathophysiology, opioid-related GI side effects, clinical presentation, and diagnostic criteria and to review the current pharmacotherapy available.

RECENT FINDINGS

Opioid-related GI disorders are increasingly recognized and include, but are not limited to, opioid-induced esophageal dysfunction (OIED), gastroparesis, opioid-induced constipation (OIC), narcotic bowel syndrome (NBS), acute post-operative ileus, and anal sphincter dysfunction. Treatment of these conditions is challenging. OIC has the most available pharmacotherapy for treatment, including classical laxatives, peripherally acting μ-receptor antagonists (PAMORAs), novel therapies (lubiprostone, prucalopride- 5-HT agonist), and preventative therapies (PR oxycodone/naloxone). The gastrointestinal effects of opioid therapy are variable and often debilitating. While medical management for some opioid-related GI side effects exists, limiting or completely avoiding opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain will mitigate these effects most effectively.

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.

Targeting mu opioid receptors to modulate gastrointestinal function: what have we learnt so far from the studies in functional bowel disorders?

Opioids have recently received much attention because of the epidemic in their use in some countries such as the USA and the UK. Concerns have been raised about the possibility that they can increase mortality in patients when used on a long-term basis. Moreover, they are known to induce paradoxical hyperalgesia as well as alterations of gut function. The analgesic properties of opioids are mediated by receptors located in the brain, but as opioid receptors are also expressed in the gastrointestinal tract, new drugs acting on these receptors have recently been developed to treat two functional disorders, namely irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea and opioid-induced constipation. The aim of this article is to highlight some interesting observations resulting from the development of these drugs in the field of functional gastrointestinal disorders.

Efficacy of pharmacological therapies for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Opioids are increasingly prescribed in the West and have deleterious GI consequences. Pharmacological therapies to treat opioid-induced constipation (OIC) are available, but their relative efficacy is unclear. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to address this deficit in current knowledge.

DESIGN

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials through to December 2017 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological therapies in the treatment of adults with OIC. Trials had to report a dichotomous assessment of overall response to therapy, and data were pooled using a random effects model. Efficacy and safety of pharmacological therapies was reported as a pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs to summarise the effect of each comparison tested and ranked treatments according to their P-score.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven eligible RCTs of pharmacological therapies, containing 9149 patients, were identified. In our primary analysis, using failure to achieve an average of ≥3 bowel movements (BMs) per week with an increase of ≥1 BM per week over baseline or an average of ≥3 BMs per week, to define non-response, the network meta-analysis ranked naloxone first in terms of efficacy (RR=0.65; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.80, P-score=0.84), and it was also the safest drug. When non-response to therapy was defined using failure to achieve an average of ≥3 BMs per week, with an increase of ≥1 BM per week over baseline, naldemedinewas ranked first (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.77, P score=0.91) and alvimopan second (RR=0.74; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94, P-score=0.71).

CONCLUSION

In network meta-analysis, naloxone and naldemedine appear to be the most efficacious treatments for OIC. Naloxone was the safest of these agents.

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.

Pharmacological Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation Is Effective but Choice of Endpoints Affects the Therapeutic Gain

BACKGROUND

Widespread opioid use has led to increase in opioid-related adverse effects like constipation. We examined the impact of study endpoints on reported treatment benefits.

METHODS

Using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov, we searched for randomized control trials targeting chronic opioid-induced constipation (OIC) and subjected them to meta-analysis. Data are given with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Thirty trials met our inclusion criteria. Combining all dichotomous definitions of responders, active drugs were consistently more effective than placebo, with an odds ratio (OR): 2.30 [2.01-2.63; 15 studies], independent of the underlying drug mechanism. The choice of endpoints significantly affected the therapeutic gain. When time from drug administration to defecation was used, the OR decreased from 4.74 [2.71-4.74] at 6 h or less to 2.46 [1.80-3.30] at 24 h (P < 0.05). Using other response definitions, the relative benefit over placebo was 2.10 [1.77-2.50; 12 studies] for weekly bowel frequency, 2.03 [1.39-2.95; 9 studies] for symptom scores, 2.21 [1.25-3.90; 4 studies] for global assessment scales, and 1.27 [0.79-2.03; 7 studies] for rescue laxative use.

CONCLUSION

While treatment of OIC with active drugs is more effective than placebo, the relative gain depends on the choice of endpoints. The commonly used time-dependent response definition is associated with the highest response rate but is of questionable relevance in a chronic disorder. The limited data do not clearly demonstrate a unique advantage of the peripherally restricted opioid antagonists, suggesting that treatment with often cheaper agents should be optimized before shifting to these novel expensive agents.

Naldemedine in Japanese patients with opioid-induced constipation and chronic noncancer pain: open-label Phase III studies

Introduction

Naldemedine is a peripherally-acting µ-opioid-receptor antagonist, approved in Japan for opioid-induced constipation (OIC). In two open-label, single-arm, Phase III studies, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of naldemedine in Japanese patients with OIC receiving regular-use opioids (COMPOSE-6) or prolonged-release oxycodone (COMPOSE-7) for chronic noncancer pain.

Methods

Eligible Japanese adults with OIC and chronic noncancer pain received once-daily oral naldemedine 0.2 mg for 48 weeks, irrespective of food intake. Primary end points included measures of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), pain intensity, and opioid withdrawal. Secondary efficacy end points were evaluated at treatment week 2. Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) and Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) scores were evaluated in both 48-week studies.

Results

Of patients enrolled in COMPOSE-6 (N = 43) and COMPOSE-7 (N = 10), TEAEs were reported in 88% (95% CI 74.9–96.1) and 90% (95% CI 55.5–99.7), respectively. The most frequently reported TEAEs, nasopharyngitis and diarrhea, were mostly mild or moderate in severity. Assessments of pain intensity and opioid withdrawal remained stable over the 48-week treatment periods of both studies. The proportion of spontaneous bowel-movement responders at week 2 in COMPOSE-6 was 81.0% (95% CI 65.9–91.4) and 90.0% (95% CI 55.5–99.7) in COMPOSE-7. Significant and sustained improvements in PAC-SYM and PAC-QOL scores were also observed in both studies (all P<0.05).

Conclusion

Side effects that occurred with naldemedine were mostly mild or moderate in severity, and the data suggested that naldemedine can improve bowel function and QOL in Japanese patients with OIC receiving regular-use opioids or prolonged-release oxycodone for chronic noncancer pain.

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.

Oral methylnaltrexone is efficacious and well tolerated for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation in patients with chronic noncancer pain receiving concomitant methadone

Purpose

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral methylnaltrexone for opioid-induced constipation (OIC).

Patients and methods

This was a post hoc analysis of patients receiving methadone in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 trial. The trial included adults with chronic noncancer pain for ≥2 months receiving opioid doses ≥50 mg/day of oral morphine equivalents for ≥14 days and with a history of OIC. Patients were assigned to oral methylnaltrexone (150, 300, or 450 mg) or placebo once daily (QD) for 4 weeks followed by 8 weeks as needed. Percentage of dosing days that resulted in a rescue-free bowel movement (RFBM) within 4 hours of dosing was assessed during QD dosing (primary efficacy endpoint). Other endpoints included percentage of responders (ie, ≥3 RFBMs/week, with an increase of ≥1 RFBM/week from baseline for ≥3 of the 4 weeks) during QD dosing and change in weekly number of RFBMs. Adverse events were assessed.

Results

Concomitant methadone was reported in 120 patients (oral methylnaltrexone: 150 mg [n=33], 300 mg [n=30], and 450 mg [n=31]; placebo [n=26]). Oral methylnaltrexone-treated patients had significant increases in mean percentage of dosing days with RFBMs within 4 hours of dosing during weeks 1–4 with 300 mg (33.6%; P<0.01) and 450 mg (38.2%; P<0.001) vs placebo; improvements with 150 mg (20.0%) vs placebo (15.1%) did not reach statistical significance. The percentage of responders was greater vs placebo, but not significant, for the higher doses during the QD period (150 mg [39.4%], 300 mg [60.0%], 450 mg [67.7%], and placebo [38.5%]). Change from baseline in the mean number of weekly RFBMs (weeks 1–4) was significantly greater with oral methylnaltrexone 450 mg vs placebo (least-squares mean difference vs placebo, 1.2; P=0.04); no significant differences were found for 300 or 150 mg. Oral methylnaltrexone was well tolerated at all doses; few patients discontinued treatment.

Conclusion

Oral methylnaltrexone, particularly 450 mg, was efficacious and safe for treating OIC in these patients.

Efficacy of Treatments for Opioid-Induced Constipation: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a common problem in patients on chronic opioid therapy for cancer-related and non-cancer-related pain. Approved treatments for OIC are methylnaltrexone, naloxone, naloxegol, alvimopan, naldemedine, and lubiprostone. Since a meta-analysis performed in 2014, 2 new agents have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of OIC (naloxegol and naldemedine).

METHODS

We conducted a search of the medical literature following the protocol outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until March 2017 to identify randomized controlled trials of peripheral μ-opioid-receptor antagonists (methylnaltrexone, naloxone, naloxegol, alvimopan, axelopran, or naldemedine), lubiprostone, or prucalopride. Response to therapy was extracted in a dichotomous assessment as an overall response to therapy. The effect of pharmacologic therapies was pooled and reported as a relative risk (RR) of failure to respond to the treatment drug, with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

We included 27 placebo-controlled trials in our meta-analysis (23 trials evaluated μ-opioid-receptor antagonists, 3 trials evaluated lubiprostone, and 1 trial evaluated prucalopride). In these trials, 5390 patients received a drug and 3491 received a placebo. Overall, μ-opioid-receptor antagonists, lubiprostone, and prucalopride were superior to placebo for the treatment of OIC, with a RR of failure to respond to therapy of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.64-0.75) and an overall number needed to treat of 5 (95% CI, 4-7). When restricted to only Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for OIC, the RR of failure to respond to therapy was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.62-0.77), with a number needed to treat of 5 (95% CI, 4-7). Sensitivity analyses and meta-regression performed to account for heterogeneity showed that treatment was more likely to be effective in study populations taking higher doses of opiates at baseline or refractory to laxatives. Study duration and prespecified primary outcome did not affect the RR of failure. Participants who received μ-opioid-receptor antagonists were significantly more likely to have diarrhea, abdominal pain, nausea, or vomiting than patients who received placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found μ-opioid-receptor antagonists to be safe and effective for the treatment of OIC. Prescription-strength laxatives (prucalopride, lubiprostone) are slightly better than placebo in reducing OIC.

New developments in the treatment of opioid-induced gastrointestinal symptoms

Chronic pain affects a large part of the global population, leading to an increase of opioid use. Opioid-induced constipation (OIC), a highly prevalent adverse effect of opioid use, has a major impact on patients' quality of life. Thanks to the introduction of new drugs for chronic constipation, which can also be used in OIC, and the development of peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor blockers, specifically for use in OIC, therapeutic options have seen major development. This review summarises current and emerging treatment options for OIC based on an extensive bibliographical search. Efficacy data for laxatives, lubiprostone, prucalopride, linaclotide, oxycodone/naloxone combinations, methylnaltrexone, alvimopan, naloxegol, naldemedine, axelopran, and bevenopran in OIC are summarised.

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.

Opioid receptors in the GI tract: targets for treatment of both diarrhea and constipation in functional bowel disorders?

Opioids have been used for centuries, mostly as a sedative and to treat pain. Currently, they are used on a global scale for the treatment of acute and chronic pain in diseases as osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and low back pain. Binding of opioids on opioid receptors can cause a range of different effects such as changes in stress response, analgesia, motor activity and autonomic functions. This review provide a synthetic summary of the most recent literature on the use of drugs acting on mu-receptors to treat two prevalent functional bowel disorders, presenting with opposite bowel habit. Eluxadoline and naloxegol, methylnaltrexone and naldemedine are recently FDA and/or EMA approved drugs demonstrated to be effective and safe for treatment respectively of irritable bowel syndrome subtype diarrhea and opioid induced constipation.

Oral methylnaltrexone does not negatively impact analgesia in patients with opioid-induced constipation and chronic noncancer pain

Purpose

An oral formulation of methylnaltrexone has been developed for treating opioid-induced constipation (OIC). This manuscript examines the impact of oral methylnaltrexone, a peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonist, on opioid analgesia.

Methods

This Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, evaluated changes in pain intensity scores (0= no pain to 10= worst possible pain) and opioid use in adults with chronic noncancer pain. Patients taking ≥50 mg/day oral morphine equivalent dose (MED) for ≥14 days before screening with less than three rescue-free bowel movements/week received oral methylnaltrexone 150 mg/day (n=201), 300 mg/day (n=201), 450 mg/day (n=200), or placebo (n=201) once daily for 4 weeks followed by 8 weeks of oral methylnaltrexone as needed.

Results

The primary condition requiring opioid use was back pain (68.2% of 803 patients). Baseline pain intensity scores were similar among treatment groups (mean range, 6.2–6.4) and remained stable throughout the 4-week double-blind (mean range, 6.1–6.5) and 8-week as needed (mean range, 6.3–6.5) periods. Baseline mean MED was comparable between oral methylnaltrexone 150 mg (200.0 mg/day), methylnaltrexone 450 mg (218.0 mg/day), and placebo (209.7 mg/day), but was slightly higher in the oral methylnaltrexone 300-mg group (252.6 mg/day). Nonsignificant, minimal changes in mean MED were observed after 4 weeks of treatment (214.5–235.6 mg/day) and at the end of the as needed phase (202.3–234.9 mg/day). The percentage of patients who initiated new opioid medications during the 4-week, once-daily dosing period was generally similar among the oral methylnaltrexone 150-mg, 300-mg, and 450-mg groups (44.8%, 43.3%, and 35.0%, respectively), the oral methylnaltrexone combined group (41.0%), and the placebo group (39.8%). The most common newly initiated opioid medications during this once-daily period were oxycodone (oral methylnaltrexone groups combined, 14.6%; placebo, 12.4%) and morphine (oral methylnaltrexone combined, 10.1%; placebo, 7.0%).

Conclusion

Oral methylnaltrexone does not elicit opioid withdrawal or interfere with opioid analgesia.

Reduction in pain: Is it worth the gain? The effect of opioids on the GI tract

The use of opioid medications for acute and chronic pain has increased significantly in the past 20 years in the United States. Given the high density of opioid receptors in the gastrointestinal tract, side effects are common in these patients including constipation, dysphagia, bloating, nausea, and vomiting. These side effects, which are experienced by most patients who take opioids, can lead to significant impairment in quality of life. Unlike other side effects from opioids, gastrointestinal side effects do not diminish with continued use, often leading patients to reduce or discontinue their opioid treatment to relieve these side effects. Therefore, physicians must be aware and anticipate potential side effects in patients receiving opioids to ensure appropriate pain management.

Insights on efficacious doses of PAMORAs for patients on chronic opioid therapy or opioid-naïve patients

BACKGROUND

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a major side effect of opioid use. Centrally acting antagonists result in opioid withdrawal or worsening of pain and lead to use of peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs). The required doses of the PAMORAs, methylnaltrexone and naloxegol, in the treatment of OIC are well established in chronic opioid users. OIC may occur after short duration of opioid treatment; the required doses of naloxone, naltrexone, and PAMORAs in opioid-naïve subjects (with no opioid use for at least 3 months) are unclear. The aim of this review was to evaluate the PAMORA dose required for opioid-naïve subjects to achieve similar beneficial effects on symptoms or valid surrogates to those observed in chronic opioid users.

METHODS

A PubMed search of μ-opioid antagonists to counter μ-opioid effects included terms: naloxone, naltrexone, methylnaltrexone, alvimopan, and naloxegol, as well as OIC and colonic transit.

KEY RESULTS

The approved dose of methylnaltrexone in chronic opioid users, 0.3 mg/kg subcutaneous (SQ), did not affect motility in opioid-naïve subjects. Trials investigating the required dose of alvimopan showed 0.5-1 mg dose was efficacious in treating OIC; a 10-fold higher dose (12 mg) of alvimopan is needed to block effects of codeine on small bowel and colonic transit in opioid-naïve subjects compared to chronic opioid users. Opioid-naïve users need 125 mg of naloxegol to reverse the effects of opioids on transit; this is in contrast to the 12.5 to 25 mg needed to treat OIC in chronic opioid users.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

Opioid-naïve subjects require a higher dose of PAMORA than chronic opioid users to achieve μ-opioid antagonist effect.

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.