A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy, parallel-group study to determine the safety and efficacy of oxycodone/naloxone prolonged-release tablets in patients with moderate/severe, chronic cancer pain

Effect of oral naloxone on opioid-induced constipation in methadone maintenance treatment patients, a double-blind, placebo-control, clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is the most prevalent side effect of methadone maintenance therapy (MMT). Naloxone could reduce the OIC.

METHOD

Fifty-six MMT cases (< 75 mg/day methadone, > 3 months) were entered randomly into four groups of a trial. They received placebo or naloxone tablets (0.5, 2, or 4 mg/day) once a day for 2 weeks. They continued their conventional laxative. Their constipation and opiate withdrawal (OWS) were evaluated by the Bristol Stool Form Scale (stool consistency and frequency), Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) questionnaire, Constipation Scoring System (CSS), and the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale (SOWS) before starting treatment and at the end of the first and second weeks.

RESULTS

The dose of 4 mg/day naloxone was excluded from the study due to severe OWS. The precipitants of groups had similar ages, methadone dose and duration, laxative use, and constipation scores at the start of the trial. However, 2 mg of naloxone could change the stool consistency (PV = 0.0052) and frequency (P = 0.0133), 0.5 mg/day dose only improved the stool consistency (P = 0.0016). The patients' CSS and PAC-SYM scores were reduced by naloxone after the 1st week of treatment. However, there was no significant difference in the mean score of SOWS at different assessment times and groups. Also, 3 and 4 cases of 0.5 and 2 mg/day groups, respectively, withdrew from the study due to OWS.

CONCLUSION

Oral naloxone at doses of 0.5 and 2 mg/day was significantly more effective than placebo on OIC in MMT. However, the dose of 4 mg induced intolerable OWS.

Opioid analgesics for nociceptive cancer pain: A comprehensive review

Pain is one of the most burdensome symptoms in people with cancer, and opioid analgesics are considered the mainstay of cancer pain management. For this review, the authors evaluated the efficacy and toxicities of opioid analgesics compared with placebo, other opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and nonpharmacologic treatments for background cancer pain (continuous and relatively constant pain present at rest), and breakthrough cancer pain (transient exacerbation of pain despite stable and adequately controlled background pain). They found a paucity of placebo-controlled trials for background cancer pain, although tapentadol or codeine may be more efficacious than placebo (moderate-certainty to low-certainty evidence). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs including aspirin, piroxicam, diclofenac, ketorolac, and the antidepressant medicine imipramine, may be at least as efficacious as opioids for moderate-to-severe background cancer pain. For breakthrough cancer pain, oral transmucosal, buccal, sublingual, or intranasal fentanyl preparations were identified as more efficacious than placebo but were more commonly associated with toxicities, including constipation and nausea. Despite being recommended worldwide for the treatment of cancer pain, morphine was generally not superior to other opioids, nor did it have a more favorable toxicity profile. The interpretation of study results, however, was complicated by the heterogeneity in the study populations evaluated. Given the limited quality and quantity of research, there is a need to reappraise the clinical utility of opioids in people with cancer pain, particularly those who are not at the end of life, and to further explore the effects of opioids on immune system function and quality of life in these individuals.

Managing Severe Cancer Pain with Oxycodone/Naloxone Treatment: A Literature Review Update

Severe cancer pain substantially affects patients' quality of life, increasing the burden of the disease and reducing the disability-adjusted life years. Although opioid analgesics are effective, they may induce opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD). Oxycodone/naloxone combination therapy has emerged as a promising approach to mitigate opioid-induced constipation (OIC) while providing effective pain relief. This review provides an updated analysis of the literature of the last decade regarding the use of oxycodone/naloxone in the management of severe cancer pain. Through a comprehensive search of databases, studies focusing on the efficacy, safety, and patient experience of oxycodone/naloxone's prolonged release in severe cancer pain management were identified. Furthermore, the literature discusses the mechanism of action of naloxone in mitigating OIC without compromising opioid analgesia. Overall, the evidence suggests that oxycodone/naloxone combination therapy offers a valuable option for effectively managing severe cancer pain while minimizing opioid-induced constipation, thereby improving patients' quality of life. However, further research is needed to optimize dosing regimens, evaluate long-term safety, and assess patient outcomes in diverse cancer populations.

Pharmacological prevention and treatment of opioid-induced constipation in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cancer-related pain often requires opioid treatment with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) as its most frequent gastrointestinal side-effect. Both for prevention and treatment of OIC osmotic (e.g. polyethylene glycol) and stimulant (e.g. bisacodyl) laxatives are widely used. Newer drugs such as the peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) and naloxone in a fixed combination with oxycodone have become available for the management of OIC. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to give an overview of the scientific evidence on pharmacological strategies for the prevention and treatment of OIC in cancer patients.

METHODS

A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library was completed from inception up to 22 October 2022. Randomized and non-randomized studies were systematically selected. Bowel function and adverse drug events were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty trials (prevention: five RCTs and three cohort studies; treatment: ten RCTs and two comparative cohort studies) were included in the review. Regarding the prevention of OIC, three RCTs compared laxatives with other laxatives, finding no clear differences in effectivity of the laxatives used. One cohort study showed a significant benefit of magnesium oxide compared with no laxative. One RCT found a significant benefit for the PAMORA naldemedine compared with magnesium oxide. Preventive use of oxycodone/naloxone did not show a significant difference in two out of three other studies compared to oxycodone or fentanyl. A meta-analysis was not possible. Regarding the treatment of OIC, two RCTs compared laxatives, of which one RCT found that polyethylene glycol was significantly more effective than sennosides. Seven studies compared an opioid antagonist (naloxone, methylnaltrexone or naldemedine) with placebo and three studies compared different dosages of opioid antagonists. These studies with opioid antagonists were used for the meta-analysis. Oxycodone/naloxone showed a significant improvement in Bowel Function Index compared to oxycodone with laxatives (MD -13.68; 95 % CI -18.38 to -8.98; I2 = 58 %). Adverse drug event rates were similar amongst both groups, except for nausea in favour of oxycodone/naloxone (RR 0.51; 95 % CI 0.31-0.83; I2 = 0 %). Naldemedine (NAL) and methylnaltrexone (MNTX) demonstrated significantly higher response rates compared to placebo (NAL: RR 2.07, 95 % CI 1.64-2.61, I2 = 0 %; MNTX: RR 3.83, 95 % CI 2.81-5.22, I2 = 0 %). With regard to adverse events, abdominal pain was more present in treatment with methylnaltrexone and diarrhea was significantly more present in treatment with naldemedine. Different dosages of methylnaltrexone were not significantly different with regard to both efficacy and adverse drug event rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Magnesium oxide and naldemedine are most likely effective for prevention of OIC in cancer patients. Naloxone in a fixed combination with oxycodone, naldemedine and methylnaltrexone effectively treat OIC in cancer patients with acceptable adverse events. However, their effect has not been compared to standard (osmotic and stimulant) laxatives. More studies comparing standard laxatives with each other and with opioid antagonists are necessary before recommendations for clinical practice can be made.

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.

Treatment of Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome Triggered by Oxycodone/Naloxone with Dexmedetomidine

The combination of oxycodone and naloxone is useful for cancer pain management. Naloxone, as a pure opioid antagonist, cannot be used simultaneously with opioids. However, owing to its low bioavailability, it can be used in an oral composite formulation. We present the case of a 55-year-old man with gastric cancer who experienced severe opioid withdrawal syndrome (OWS) triggered by oxycodone/naloxone that was successfully managed with dexmedetomidine. He had been in a stable condition on intravenous morphine to alleviate cancer pain. Intravenous morphine was switched to oral oxycodone/naloxone for discharge from the hospital. The patient suddenly developed restlessness, heartburn, and violent behavior 30 minutes after taking oxycodone/naloxone. We attempted sedation with midazolam and propofol, but paradoxical agitation and desaturation occurred. Next, we tried dexmedetomidine and the patient showed a decreased heart rate and reduced agitation. The patient was eventually stabilized by increasing the dose of dexmedetomidine. This report informs clinicians of the possibility of OWS when switching from opioids to oxycodone/naloxone, which can be overcome with the appropriate use of sedatives and dexmedetomidine depending on the patient's condition.

ENhANCE trial protocol: A multi-centre, randomised, phase IV trial comparing the efficacy of oxycodone/naloxone prolonged release (OXN PR) versus oxycodone prolonged release (Oxy PR) tablets in patients with advanced cancer

Background

Oxycodone is a frequently used opioid in cancer. Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is common. Oxycodone/Naloxone Prolonged Release (OXN PR) contains naloxone, which mitigates OIC. Trials have either focused on non-cancer pain, or conducted before significant experience of using OXN PR. This trial aims to: demonstrate (1) analgesic equivalence between OXN PR and Oxycodone Prolonged Release (Oxy PR), and (2) superiority of constipation outcomes in OXN PR compared to Oxy PR in cancer pain. Unlike other trials, it will only include patients with at least moderate pain scores (≥4/10), allow usual laxatives, and exclude potential liver dysfunction.

Methods

This is a multi-centre, open-label, randomised, phase IV study of OXN PR vs Oxy PR in patients with cancer-related pain. The primary outcome is pain difference on Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) at 5 weeks. Secondary outcomes are comparison of other pain outcomes (BPI-SF) and neuropathic pain measures (Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms & Signs (S-LANNS)), constipation (Bowel Function Index (BFI)), quality of life (EORTC-QLQ-C30), rescue analgesia use, total opioid dose, and total laxative dose over 5 weeks.

Conclusion

The comparison of analgesic efficacy between both arms, and superiority of constipation in the OXN PR arm will add new knowledge on the comparisons of both agents, and oxycodone independently. This trial will extend knowledge of the effectiveness, safety, and adverse effect profiles of both drugs in terms of pain, constipation, quality of life outcomes for patients with cancer pain, and provide clinicians with high quality data to guide decision making.

Trial registration

Name of the registry: ANZCTR

Trial registration number

ACTRN12619001282178

Date of registration

17/09/2019

URL of trial registry record

https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=377673&isReview=true

Protocol version 2.1_28 August 2020

•

Opioid-induced constipation is the commonest side effect in cancer pain management.

•

Oxycodone/naloxone prolonged release aims to reduce opioid-induced constipation.

•

Trials have little focus on cancer pain, concurrent liver impairment, and laxatives.

•

This trial evaluates these key problems practically to guide decision making.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Oxycodone for cancer-related pain

BACKGROUND

Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all people, neither are they well tolerated by all people. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for adults with cancer pain. This is an updated Cochrane review previously published in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone by any route of administration for pain in adults with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), and PsycINFO (Ovid) to November 2021. We also searched four trial registries, checked the bibliographic references of relevant studies, and contacted the authors of the included studies. We applied no language, date, or publication status restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults by examining pain intensity/relief, adverse events, quality of life, and participant preference.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently sifted the search, extracted data and assessed the included studies using standard Cochrane methodology. We meta-analysed pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, and pain relief and adverse events using the Mantel-Haenszel method, or summarised these data narratively along with the quality of life and participant preference data. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update, we identified 19 new studies (1836 participants) for inclusion. In total, we included 42 studies which enrolled/randomised 4485 participants, with 3945 of these analysed for efficacy and 4176 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons. Controlled-release (CR; typically taken every 12 hours) oxycodone versus immediate-release (IR; taken every 4-6 hours) oxycodone Pooled analysis of three of the four studies comparing CR oxycodone to IR oxycodone suggest that there is little to no difference between CR and IR oxycodone in pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.1 to 0.34; n = 319; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on adverse events, including constipation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54), nausea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28), and vomiting (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15) (very low-certainty evidence). There were no data available for quality of life or participant preference, however, three studies suggested that treatment acceptability may be similar between groups (low-certainty evidence). CR oxycodone versus CR morphine The majority of the 24 studies comparing CR oxycodone to CR morphine reported either pain intensity (continuous variable), pain relief (dichotomous variable), or both. Pooled analysis indicated that pain intensity may be lower (better) after treatment with CR morphine than CR oxycodone (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; n = 882 in 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). This SMD is equivalent to a difference of 0.27 points on the Brief Pain Inventory scale (0-10 numerical rating scale), which is not clinically significant. Pooled analyses also suggested that there may be little to no difference in the proportion of participants achieving complete or significant pain relief (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10; n = 1249 in 13 studies; low-certainty evidence). The RR for constipation (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86) may be lower after treatment with CR oxycodone than after CR morphine. Pooled analyses showed that, for most of the adverse events, the CIs were wide, including no effect as well as potential benefit and harm: drowsiness/somnolence (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05), nausea (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.12), and vomiting (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04) (low or very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the treatment effects on treatment acceptability and participant preference. Other comparisons The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability. The certainty of this evidence base was limited by the high or unclear risk of bias of the studies and by imprecision due to low or very low event rates or participant numbers for many outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions have not changed since the previous version of this review (in 2017). We found low-certainty evidence that there may be little to no difference in pain intensity, pain relief and adverse events between oxycodone and other strong opioids including morphine, commonly considered the gold standard strong opioid. Although we identified a benefit for pain relief in favour of CR morphine over CR oxycodone, this was not clinically significant and did not persist following sensitivity analysis and so we do not consider this important. However, we found that constipation and hallucinations occurred less often with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine; but the certainty of this evidence was either very low or the finding did not persist following sensitivity analysis, so these findings should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that, while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis, it seems unlikely that larger head-to-head studies of oxycodone versus morphine are justified, although well-designed trials comparing oxycodone to other strong analgesics may well be useful. For clinical purposes, oxycodone or morphine can be used as first-line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain in adults.

Advances in the clinical application of oxycodone in the perioperative period

To review the research progress of pure opioid receptor agonist oxycodone. The research progress of oxycodone in terms of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, adverse reactions, clinical application, combined medication and new progress in clinical application was summarized by referring to the literature. Oxycodone is a semi-synthetic thebaine derivative of opioid alkaloids, and is a pure opioid μ and κ receptor agonist. The main action sites are the central nervous system and visceral smooth muscle. Due to its advantages of low adverse reactions, good analgesic effects, and a wide range of safe doses, the drug has been widely used in the control of acute and chronic postoperative pain, as well as malignant and non-malignant pain. Since the end of the 20^th century, researchers have begun to formulate antipyretic analgesics, opioid receptor agonists, opioid receptor antagonists, dopamine receptor antagonists and other drugs with oxycodone in different proportions to enhance the analgesic effect. At the same time, it can reduce the dosage of oxycodone and reduce its adverse reactions, so as to achieve the purpose of limiting opioid abuse. With the continuous research on the efficacy and safety of oxycodone in the perioperative period at home and abroad, oxycodone has become the only dual-opioid potent analgesic that can be used in clinical work.

To what extent are we confident that tapentadol induces less constipation and other side effects than the other opioids in chronic pain patients? a confidence evaluation in network meta-analysis

Background

A confidence evaluation helps to make informed decisions about the results of meta-analyses. The goal of this work is to perform a confidence evaluation of results of a network meta-analysis (NMA) on the digestive side effects of tapentadol in patients with chronic pain.

Methods

An updated search in PubMed/Medline and Web of Science search until March 2020 was done to perform pairwise meta-analyses with NMA using random-effect models and confidence in network meta-analysis (CiNeMA) for the confidence analysis.

Results

Twenty-five studies were included in the final analyses. Pairwise and indirect comparisons showed a reduced risk of constipation with tapentadol compared to oxycodone. The confidence evaluation did not raise any concerns in terms of confidence for the oxycodone versus tapentadol comparisons. The oxycodone-naloxone versus tapentadol comparisons showed some concerns, particularly in terms of imprecision and incoherence. Regarding the overall risk of any side effects, the confidence evaluation showed a major concern regarding imprecision, but not for the comparison between tapentadol and oxycodone. However, this comparison showed a major heterogeneity.

Discussion and conclusions

A confidence evaluation in meta-analysis on the effect of tapentadol compared to other opioids in chronic pain showed possible imprecision, heterogeneity and/or incoherence. However, with a high level of confidence, tapentadol was associated with a lower incidence of constipation than oxycodone. Confidence analyses can help to get more information from meta-analyses.

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.

Oxycodone/naloxone prolonged-release tablets in patients with moderate-to-severe, chronic cancer pain: Challenges in the context of hepatic impairment

Opioids such as oxycodone are recommended in the management of moderate-to-severe, chronic cancer pain. All opioids can potentially cause constipation, which may be a significant barrier to their use. Multiple randomised clinical trials have shown that the use of naloxone as a peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonist, in combination with oxycodone can prevent or reduce opioid-induced constipation while having equivalent analgesic efficacy to oxycodone alone. However, clinical experience has shown that unexpected events may occur in some patients when unrecognized liver impairment is present. We describe the underlying biological reasons and propose simple, but effective steps to avoid this unusual but potentially serious occurrence. In healthy individuals, naloxone undergoes extensive hepatic first pass metabolism resulting in low systemic bioavailability. However, in patients with hepatic impairment, porto-systemic shunting can increase systemic bioavailability of naloxone, potentially compromising the analgesic efficacy of oral naloxone-oxycodone combinations. This reduced first pass effect can occur in a range of settings that may not always be apparent to the treating clinician, including silent cirrhosis, non-cirrhotic portal hypertension and disruption of liver internal vasculature by metastases. Hepatic function test results correlate poorly with presence and extent of liver disease, and are not indicative of porto-systemic shunting. Presence of hepatic impairment should thus be considered when medication-related outcomes with oxycodone-naloxone combination are not as expected, even if liver function test results are normal.

Blood-brain barrier: mechanisms governing permeability and interaction with peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) describes the unique properties of endothelial cells (ECs) that line the central nervous system (CNS) microvasculature. The BBB supports CNS homeostasis via EC-associated transport of ions, nutrients, proteins and waste products between the brain and blood. These transport mechanisms also serve as physiological barriers to pathogens, toxins and xenobiotics to prevent them from contacting neural tissue. The mechanisms that govern BBB permeability pose a challenge to drug design for CNS disorders, including pain, but can be exploited to limit the effects of a drug to the periphery, as in the design of the peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) used to treat opioid-induced constipation. Here, we describe BBB physiology, drug properties that affect BBB penetrance and how data from randomized clinical trials of PAMORAs improve our understanding of BBB permeability.

Acute liver injury following turmeric use in Tuscany: An analysis of the Italian Phytovigilance database and systematic review of case reports

AIMS

Several cases of acute non-infectious cholestatic hepatitis recently appeared in Italy following consumption of Curcuma longa-containing dietary supplements. The aim of this research was to describe the Tuscan (Italy) cases of acute hepatitis and to compare them with similar cases of hepatotoxicity published in the literature by performing a systematic review.

METHODS

Records of Tuscan cases of acute hepatitis were obtained from the Italian Phytovigilance system. Each spontaneous report was analysed in order to collect all relevant clinical information of patients and information concerning the Curcuma longa-containing dietary supplement. Moreover, both the RUCAM and WHO-UMC systems were used to evaluate the causal relationship between the use of dietary supplement and acute hepatitis. A systematic literature review was performed in MEDLINE and Embase and all case-reports and case-series published in English were included.

RESULTS

Seven cases of acute hepatitis occurring in Tuscany up to September 2019 are described. In all cases, hepatotoxicity was associated with Curcuma longa formulations with high bioavailability and high dosage of curcumin/curcuminoids. The causal relationship was also supported by the positive dechallenge observed in most cases. In the 23 cases identified through the systematic review, the majority of patients were concomitantly exposed to at least one other medication and 16 of them experienced a positive dechallenge.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the frame of poorly controlled and regulated products, such as dietary supplements, the evaluation of Italian cases of Curcuma longa-induced acute hepatitis and the systematic review of literature confirmed the association between Curcuma longa and liver injury.

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.

Prolonged-Release (PR) Oxycodone/Naloxone Improves Bowel Function Compared with Oxycodone PR and Provides Effective Analgesia in Chinese Patients with Non-malignant Pain: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial

Introduction

Prolonged-release oxycodone/naloxone (OXN PR), combining an opioid analgesic with selective blockade of enteric µ-opioid receptors, provided effective analgesia and improved bowel function in patients with moderate-to-severe pain and opioid-induced constipation in clinical trials predominantly conducted in Western countries. This double-blind randomized controlled trial investigated OXN PR (N = 116) versus prolonged-release oxycodone (OXY PR, N = 115) for 8 weeks at doses up to 50 mg/day in patients with moderate-to-severe, chronic, non-malignant musculoskeletal pain and opioid-induced constipation recruited in China.

Methods

A total of 234 patients at least 18 years of age with non-malignant musculoskeletal pain for more than 4 weeks that was moderate-to-severe in intensity and required round-the-clock opioid therapy were randomized (1:1) to OXN PR or OXY PR. The primary endpoint was bowel function using the Bowel Function Index (BFI). Secondary endpoints included safety, Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF), use of analgesic and laxative rescue medication, and health-related quality of life (EQ-5D).

Results

While BFI scores were comparable at baseline, at week 8 improvements were greater with OXN PR vs OXY PR (least squares mean [LSM] difference (95% CI) − 9.1 (− 14.0, − 4.2); P < 0.001. From weeks 2 to 8, mean BFI scores were in the range of normal bowel function (≤ 28.8) with OXN PR but were in the range of constipation (> 28.8) at all timepoints with OXY PR. Analgesia with OXN PR was similar and non-inferior to OXY PR on the basis of modified BPI-SF average 24-h pain scores at week 8: LSM difference (95% CI) − 0.3 (− 0.5, − 0.1); P < 0.001. The most frequent treatment-related AEs were nausea (OXN PR 5% vs OXY PR 6%) and dizziness (4% vs 4%).

Conclusion

OXN PR provided clinically meaningful improvements in bowel function and effective analgesia in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe musculoskeletal pain and pre-existing opioid-induced constipation.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01918098.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01244-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Are the MORECare guidelines on reporting of attrition in palliative care research populations appropriate? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Palliative care trials have higher rates of attrition. The MORECare guidance recommends applying classifications of attrition to report attrition to help interpret trial results. The guidance separates attrition into three categories: attrition due to death, illness or at random. The aim of our study is to apply the MORECare classifications on reported attrition rates in trials.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted and attrition classifications retrospectively applied. Four databases, EMBASE; Medline, CINHAL and PsychINFO, were searched for randomised controlled trials of palliative care populations from 01.01.2010 to 08.10.2016. This systematic review is part of a larger review looking at recruitment to randomised controlled trials in palliative care, from January 1990 to early October 2016. We ran random-effect models with and without moderators and descriptive statistics to calculate rates of missing data.

RESULTS

One hundred nineteen trials showed a total attrition of 29% (95% CI 28 to 30%). We applied the MORECare classifications of attrition to the 91 papers that contained sufficient information. The main reason for attrition was attrition due to death with a weighted mean of 31.6% (SD 27.4) of attrition cases. Attrition due to illness was cited as the reason for 17.6% (SD 24.5) of participants. In 50.8% (SD 26.5) of cases, the attrition was at random. We did not observe significant differences in missing data between total attrition in non-cancer patients (26%; 95% CI 18-34%) and cancer patients (24%; 95% CI 20-29%). There was significantly more missing data in outpatients (29%; 95% CI 22-36%) than inpatients (16%; 95% CI 10-23%). We noted increased attrition in trials with longer durations.

CONCLUSION

Reporting the cause of attrition is useful in helping to understand trial results. Prospective reporting using the MORECare classifications should improve our understanding of future trials.

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.

The role of oxycodone/naloxone in the management of patients with pain and opioid-induced constipation

INTRODUCTION

Common opioid adverse effects (AE) of the gastrointestinal tract include opioid-induced constipation (OIC) and opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) with traditional laxatives being of limited efficacy, having AEs and not addressing the pathophysiology of OIC or OIBD. Targeted treatment comprises of PAMORA (peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists) and a combination of an opioid receptor agonist with its antagonist, namely prolonged-release oxycodone with prolonged-release naloxone (OXN) tablets at a fixed ratio of 2:1. Oxycodone provides analgesia, whereas naloxone prevents binding or displaces it from opioid receptors located in the gut wall. Areas covered: The authors review the role of OXN in the management of patients with pain and OIC. A literature search was performed using the search terms 'oxycodone/naloxone' and 'opioid-induced constipation' using the PubMed database up to October 2018. Expert opinion: OXN delivers analgesia comparable (or superior versus placebo and in observational studies) to oxycodone alone and other opioids with a limited or decreased disturbing effect on bowel function. OXN in daily doses of up to 160 mg/80 mg provides effective analgesia with little negative impact on bowel function. OXN may be successfully used in patients with chronic pain, to prevent or treat symptoms of OIC and OIBD.

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.

Comparison of analgesic effect of oxycodone and morphine on patients with moderate and advanced cancer pain: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Morphine and oxycodone are considered as wide-spreadly used opioids for moderate/severe cancer pain. However, debate exists about the evidence regarding their relative tolerability and underlying results.

METHODS

A systematic search of online electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library updated on October 2017 were conducted. The meta-analysis was performed including the studies that were designed as randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

In total, seven randomized clinical trials met our inclusion criteria. No statistical differences in analgesic effect between oxycodone and morphine were observed. Both the pooled analysis of API (MD =0.01, 95% CI -0.22 - 0.23; p = 0.96) and WPI (MD = - 0.05, 95% CI -0.21 - 0.30; p = 0.72) demonstrated clinical non-inferiority of the efficacy of morphine compared with oxycodone, respectively. Additionally, no significant difference in PRR response was observed in either oxycodone or morphine that were used in patients (MD =0.99, 95% CI -0.88 - 1.11; p = 0.87). With the pooled result of AEs indicating the comparable safety profiles between the 2 treatment groups, the meta-analysis on the nausea (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 0.90-1.59; p = 0.22), vomiting (OR = 1.33, 95% CI 0.75-2.38; p = 0.33), somnolence (OR = 1.35, 95% CI 0.95-1.93; p = 0.10), diarrhea (OR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.60-1,67; p = 0.98), and constipation (OR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.77-1.41; p = 0.79) was conducted, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In the current study, no remarkable difference was identified either in analgesic efficacy or in tolerability of oxycodone and morphine as the first-line therapy for patients with moderate to severe cancer pain. Thus, no sufficient clinical evidence on the superior effects of oxycodone to morphine was provided in this experimental hypothesis.

Incidence and Health Related Quality of Life of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Chronic Noncancer Pain Patients: A Prospective Multicentre Cohort Study

Background

High rates of opioid use for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) have been reported worldwide, despite its association with adverse events, inappropriate use, and limited analgesic effect. Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is the most prevalent and disabling adverse effect associated with opioid therapy. Our aim was to assess the incidence, health related quality of life (HRQOL), and disability in OIC patients.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was performed, with 6 months of follow-up, of adult CNCP patients consecutively admitted in 4 multidisciplinary pain clinics (MPC). Demographic and clinical data have been collected. Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and Short version of Treatment Outcomes in Pain Survey (S-TOPS) were used to measure functional outcomes and HRQOL. OIC was assessed using Bowel Function Index (BFI).

Results

694 patients were recruited. OIC prevalence at baseline was 25.8%. At 6 months, OIC incidence was 24.8%. Female gender (OR = 1.65, p = 0.039), opioid therapy (OR 1.65, p = 0.026), and interference pain score on BPI (OR 1.10, p = 0.009) were identified as OIC independent predictors. OIC patients presented higher disability and pain interference and severity scores. OIC patients reported less satisfaction with outcome (p = 0.038).

Discussion

Constipation is a common adverse event among opioid users with major functional and quality of life impairment. These findings emphasise the need of OIC adequate assessment and management.

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

BACKGROUND

Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is characterised by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and gastric reflux. It is one of the major adverse events of treatment for pain in cancer and in palliative care, resulting in increased morbidity and reduced quality of life.This is an update of two Cochrane reviews. One was published in 2011, Issue 1 on laxatives and methylnaltrexone for the management of constipation in people receiving palliative care; this was updated in 2015 and excluded methylnaltrexone. The other was published in 2008, Issue 4 on mu-opioid antagonists (MOA) for OIBD. In this updated review, we only included trials on MOA (including methylnaltrexone) for OIBD in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The appropriateness of combining data from the trials depended upon sufficient homogeneity across the trials. Our primary outcomes were laxation, impact on pain relief, and adverse events. Impact on pain relief was a primary outcome because a possible adverse effect of MOAs is a reduction in pain relief from opioids. We assessed the evidence on these outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Oxycodone/Naloxone Prolonged Release: A Review in Severe Chronic Pain

Oral oxycodone/naloxone prolonged release (PR) [Targin^®, Targinact^®, Targiniq^®] is a 12-hourly opioid receptor agonist and opioid receptor antagonist fixed-dose combination product that is approved in countries in the EU for the management of severe pain (adequately manageable only with opioid analgesics) in adults. Oral naloxone prevents oxycodone from binding to μ-receptors in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, thereby counteracting opioid-induced constipation (OIC). In short-term (5- to 12-week) clinical trials of adults with moderate to severe, chronic pain and OIC (OXN3001, OXN3006, OXN3506), oxycodone/naloxone PR significantly improved OIC while providing noninferior analgesia relative to oxycodone PR; results were consistent between cancer and non-cancer patients in OXN3506. Analgesia and improvements in bowel function were sustained with an additional 24-52 weeks of oxycodone/naloxone PR treatment in long-term extension studies. Results in real-world studies were consistent with those in clinical trials. Oxycodone/naloxone PR was generally well tolerated, with nausea, hyperhidrosis, and diarrhoea (generally transient) reported as the most commonly occurring adverse events. Thus, oxycodone/naloxone PR is a useful treatment option to consider in adults with severe chronic pain that can be adequately managed only with opioid analgesics, particularly in those with OIC.

European Pain Federation position paper on appropriate opioid use in chronic pain management

Poorly controlled pain is a global public health issue. The personal, familial and societal costs are immeasurable. Only a minority of European patients have access to a comprehensive specialist pain clinic. More commonly the responsibility for chronic pain management and initiating opioid therapy rests with the primary care physician and other non‐specialist opioid prescribers. There is much confusing and conflicting information available to non‐specialist prescribers regarding opioid therapy and a great deal of unjustified fear is generated. Opioid therapy should only be initiated by competent clinicians as part of a multi‐faceted treatment programme in circumstances where more simple measures have failed. Throughout, all patients must be kept under close clinical surveillance. As with any other medical therapy, if the treatment fails to yield the desired results and/or the patient is additionally burdened by an unacceptable level of adverse effects, the overall management strategy must be reviewed and revised. No responsible clinician will wish to pursue a failed treatment strategy or persist with an ineffective and burdensome treatment. In a considered attempt to empower and inform non‐specialist opioid prescribers, EFIC convened a European group of experts, drawn from a diverse range of basic science and relevant clinical disciplines, to prepare a position paper on appropriate opioid use in chronic pain. The expert panel reviewed the available literature and harnessed the experience of many years of clinical practice to produce these series of recommendations. Its success will be judged on the extent to which it contributes to an improved pain management experience for chronic pain patients across Europe.

Significance

This position paper provides expert recommendations for primary care physicians and other non‐ specialist healthcare professionals in Europe, particularly those who do not have ready access to specialists in pain medicine, on the safe and appropriate use of opioid medications as part of a multi‐faceted approach to pain management, in properly selected and supervised patients.

Efficacy and safety of oxycodone/naloxone as add-on therapy to gabapentin or pregabalin for the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in Korea

AIMS

To investigate the efficacy and safety of oxycodone/naloxone in patients with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) inadequately controlled with pregabalin or gabapentin.

METHODS

This 4-week, multicenter, interventional, single-arm phase IV study included 72 Korean patients with CIPN inadequately controlled with pregabalin or gabapentin (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10; NRS ≥4 at baseline). In addition to pregabalin or gabapentin at existing doses, patients received 20/10 mg/day oxycodone/naloxone (up-titrated to 80/40 mg/day as needed). The primary endpoint was change in NRS score after 4 weeks. Secondary endpoints included Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity (FACT/GOG-NTX) scores and safety assessments.

RESULTS

The mean ± standard deviation (SD) dose of oxycodone/naloxone was 23.3 ± 7.5 mg/day. At week 4, NRS score reduction was 1.29 ± 1.84 points (21.4% reduction; P < 0.0001). Patients on taxane-based chemotherapy experienced a significantly smaller mean change in NRS score at week 4 compared to patients on other chemotherapy (-0.63 ± 1.54 [n = 30] vs. -1.83 ± 1.00 [n = 36]; P = 0.0072). Although there were no significant changes in FACT/GOG-NTX total scores, improvements were observed in the neurotoxicity subscale measuring numbness/tingling of hands (mean ± SD change: -0.27 ± 1.04; P = 0.0427) and feet (-0.60 ± 1.09; P < 0.0001). Forty-two (58.3%) patients reported adverse events. There were no clinically significant changes in laboratory tests or vital signs.

CONCLUSION

Oxycodone/naloxone added to pregabalin or gabapentin provided additional pain relief and symptom control in Korean patients with CIPN, without clinically significant safety concerns.

Prolonged release oxycodone and naloxone treatment counteracts opioid-induced constipation in patients with severe pain compared to previous analgesic treatment

OBJECTIVE

Treatment with prolonged-release oxycodone/naloxone (PR OXN) has been shown to improve opioid induced constipation (OIC) in constipated patients. This publication reports on a real-life observational study investigating the efficacy of PR OXN with regard to bowel function in patients switching to PR OXN from WHO step 1, step 2 and step 3 opioids.

METHODS

Patients with chronic pain experiencing insufficient pain relief and/or unacceptable side effects were switched to PR OXN and monitored in this observational study with respect to efficacy regarding bowel function and efficacy regarding pain relief in comparison with previous analgesic therapy. A patient was considered a responder with respect to efficacy if this assessment was "slightly better", "better" or "much better" compared with previous therapy. Bowel function index, pain intensity, quality of life, laxative medication use, and safety analgesic were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 1338 patients (mean [SD] age 64.3 [14.9], 63% female) were observed for 43 [3-166] days (median [range]) during treatment with PR OXN. Overall response rate regarding bowel function efficacy was 82.5%. Patients with symptoms of constipation at study entry obtained a clinically relevant improvement of the bowel function index (BFI) within the first 2 weeks of PR OXN treatment. Non-constipated patients at study entry maintained normal bowel function despite switching to treatment with the opioid PR OXN.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, treatment with PR OXN results in a significant and clinically relevant improvement of bowel function. During the observation of the treatment with PR OXN patients reported an improvement of quality of life (QoL). More interestingly, non-constipated patients maintained a normal bowel function, showing prevention of constipation despite the use of an opioid.

Evidence-Based Palliative Care 13 Years On: Has anything changed?

There is a paucity of data on whether interventions in individual palliative care units are evidence-based. Thirteen years ago an initial study evaluated the evidence base of interventions in palliative care. Using similar methodology in the present study, we evaluated the evidence for interventions performed in an inpatient palliative care setting, looking at level of evidence as well as quality and outcome of evidence. More than half of all the interventions (47 interventions, 59 percent) we looked at in a Brisbane, Australia, inpatient palliative care setting were based on a high level of evidence in the form of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (level I or level II). There were only a few interventions (10 percent) for which no evidence could be retrieved. Our results show that the evidence base for interventions in palliative care continues to evolve, but that there are still areas for which further high-quality studies are needed.

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.

Efficacy and safety of controlled-release oxycodone/naloxone versus controlled-release oxycodone in Korean patients with cancer-related pain: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Controlled-release oxycodone/naloxone (OXN-CR) maintains the effect of opioid-induced analgesia through oxycodone while reducing the occurrence rate of opioid-induced constipation through naloxone. The present study was designed to assess the non-inferiority of OXN-CR to controlled-release oxycodone (OX-CR) for the control of cancer-related pain in Korean patients.

METHODS

In this randomized, open-labeled, parallel-group, phase IV study, we enrolled patients aged 20 years or older with moderate to severe cancer-related pain [numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score ≥4] from seven Korean oncology/hematology centers. Patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population were randomized (1:1) to OXN-CR or OX-CR groups. OXN-CR was administered starting at 20 mg/10 mg per day and up-titrated to a maximum of 80 mg/40 mg per day for 4 weeks, and OX-CR was administered starting at 20 mg/day and up-titrated to a maximum of 80 mg/day for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in NRS pain score from baseline to week 4, with non-inferiority margin of -1.5. Secondary endpoints included analgesic rescue medication intake, patient-reported change in bowel habits, laxative intake, quality of life (QoL), and safety assessments.

RESULTS

Of the ITT population comprising 128 patients, 7 with missing primary efficacy data and 4 who violated the eligibility criteria were excluded from the efficacy analysis. At week 4, the mean change in NRS pain scores was not significantly different between the OXN-CR group (n = 58) and the OX-CR group (n = 59) (-1.586 vs. -1.559, P = 0.948). The lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval (-0.776 to 0.830) for the difference exceeded the non-inferiority margin (P < 0.001). The OXN-CR and OX-CR groups did not differ significantly in terms of analgesic rescue medication intake, change in bowel habits, laxative intake, QoL, and safety assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

OXN-CR was non-inferior to OX-CR in terms of pain reduction after 4 weeks of treatment and had a similar safety profile. Studies in larger populations of Korean patients with cancer-related pain are needed to further investigate the effectiveness of OXN-CR for long-term pain control and constipation alleviation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01313780, registered March 8, 2011.

A comparison between the administration of oral prolonged-release oxycodone-naloxone and transdermal fentanyl in patients with moderate-to-severe cancer pain: a propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

Opioids are the most important pharmacological treatment for moderate-to-severe cancer pain, but side effects limit their use. Transdermal fentanyl (TDF) and oral prolonged-release oxycodone-naloxone (OXN-PR) are effective in controlling chronic pain, with less constipation compared to other opioids. However, TDF and OXN-PR have never been directly compared.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cancer patients with moderate-to-severe chronic pain were consecutively enrolled in two prospective 28-day trials, received either TDF or OXN-PR, and were assessed at baseline and after 7, 14, 21, and 28 days. The primary endpoint was 28-day analgesic response rate (average pain intensity decrease ≥30% from baseline). Other outcome measures included opioid daily dose changes over time; need for adjuvant analgesics; number of switches; premature discontinuation; presence and severity of constipation; and other adverse drug reactions. To compare the efficacy and the safety of TDF and OXN-PR, we used the propensity score analysis to adjust for heterogeneity between the two patient groups.

RESULTS

Three hundred ten out of 336 patients originally treated (119 TDF and 191 OXN-PR) were included in the comparative analysis. The amount of responders was comparable after TDF (75.3%) and OXN-PR administration (82.9%, not significant [NS]). The final opioid daily dose expressed as morphine equivalent was 113.6 mg for TDF and 44.5 mg for OXN-PR (p<0.0001). A daily opioid dose escalation >5% was less common after OXN-PR (19.3%) than after TDS administration (37.9%, p<0.0001). Opioid switches and discontinuation were similar in both groups. Severe constipation in the two groups was comparable (32.6% after TDF vs 24.7% after OXN-PR, NS). Nausea, vomiting, and dry mouth were significantly less frequent in the OXN-PR group than in the TDF group.

CONCLUSION

Despite a similar analgesic activity in moderate-to-severe cancer pain, OXN-PR is characterized by lower daily dosages, less need for drug escalation, and fewer side effects compared to TDF.

Oxycodone for cancer-related pain

BACKGROUND

Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all people, neither are they well-tolerated by all people. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for adults with cancer pain. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2015, Issue 2 on oxycodone for cancer-related pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone by any route of administration for pain in adults with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), and PsycINFO (Ovid) to November 2016. We also searched four trial registries, checked the bibliographic references of relevant studies, and contacted the authors of the included studies. We applied no language, date, or publication status restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (parallel group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults by examining pain intensity/relief, adverse events, quality of life, and participant preference.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the included studies using standard Cochrane methodology. We meta-analysed pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, and adverse events using the Mantel-Haenszel method, or summarised these data narratively along with the quality of life and participant preference data. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update, we identified six new studies (1258 participants) for inclusion. In total, we included 23 studies which enrolled/randomised 2648 participants, with 2144 of these analysed for efficacy and 2363 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons.Pooled analysis of three of the four studies comparing controlled-release (CR) oxycodone to immediate-release (IR) oxycodone showed that the ability of CR and IR oxycodone to provide pain relief were similar (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.06 to 0.26; low quality evidence). Pooled analyses of adverse events showed no significant differences between CR and IR oxycodone for asthenia (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.68), confusion (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.2 to 3.02), constipation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13), dizziness/lightheadedness (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.37), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54), dry mouth (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.75), insomnia (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.53), nausea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28), nervousness (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.64), pruritus (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.25), vomiting (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15), and discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.22). The quality of the evidence was very low for all these adverse events. Three of the four studies found similar results for treatment acceptability.Pooled analysis of seven of the nine studies comparing CR oxycodone to CR morphine indicated that pain relief was significantly better after treatment with CR morphine than CR oxycodone (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; low quality evidence). However, sensitivity analysis did not corroborate this result (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.26).Pooled analyses of adverse events showed no significant differences between CR oxycodone and CR morphine for confusion (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.78 to 1.31), constipation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16), dizziness/lightheadedness (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.76), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.08), dry mouth (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.26), dysuria (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.26), nausea (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26), pruritus (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.29), vomiting (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.29), and discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.6). However, the RR for hallucinations was significantly lower after treatment with CR oxycodone compared to CR morphine (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.97). The quality of the evidence was very low for all these adverse events. There were no marked differences in treatment acceptability or quality of life ratings.The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability.The quality of this evidence base was limited by the high or unclear risk of bias of the studies and by imprecision due to low or very low event rates or participant numbers for many outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions have not changed since the previous version of this review. The data suggest that oxycodone offers similar levels of pain relief and overall adverse events to other strong opioids including morphine. Although we identified a clinically insignificant benefit on pain relief in favour of CR morphine over CR oxycodone, this did not persist following sensitivity analysis and so we do not consider this important. However, in this updated analysis, we found that hallucinations occurred less often with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine, but the quality of this evidence was very low so this finding should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis it seems unlikely that larger head to head studies of oxycodone versus morphine are justified, although well-designed trials comparing oxycodone to other strong analgesics may well be useful. For clinical purposes, oxycodone or morphine can be used as first-line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain in adults.

Global cancer pain management: a systematic review comparing trials in Africa, Europe and North America

AIM

Despite the rise in cancer survivorship, few reviews have examined the quality of studies of cancer pain management and practices around the globe. With a void in trials spanning multiple geographical settings, this review evaluates the quality of cancer trials across three continents.

MATERIALS & METHODS

A literature review and search of established databases was conducted to identify eligible studies. The Cochrane method, the Jadad Score and a cancer pain-specific ad hoc tool were used to evaluate quality of studies.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies representing a total of 4693 individuals were included in the review. Study quality correlated positively with study sample size and palliative care index. Trials in all three continents were prone to use opioids for pain management, whereas trials in Europe and North America utilized other adjuvant therapies such as antidepressants and steroids.

CONCLUSION

This review underscores the need for better multidimensional quality assessment tools for cancer pain trials.

Tolerability of Opioid Analgesia for Chronic Pain: A Network Meta-Analysis

Aim of this study was to study the tolerability of opioid analgesia by performing a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) which investigated effectiveness of opioids for the management of chronic pain. Research articles reporting outcomes of RCT/s comparing 2 or more opioid analgesics for the management of chronic pain were obtained by database search. Bayesian NMAs were performed to combine direct comparisons between treatments with that of indirect simulated evidence. Study endpoints were: incidence of adverse events, incidence of constipation, trial withdrawal rate, and patient satisfaction with treatment. Outcomes were also compared with conventional meta-analyses. Thirty-two studies investigating 10 opioid drugs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Tapentadol treatment was top-ranking owing to lower incidence of overall adverse events, constipation, and least trial withdrawal rate. Tapentadol was followed by oxycodone-naloxone combination in providing better tolerability and less trial withdrawal rate. Patient satisfaction was found to be higher with oxycodone-naloxone followed by fentanyl and tapentadol. These results were in agreement with those achieved with conventional meta-analyses. Tapentadol and oxycodone-naloxone are found to exhibit better tolerability characteristics in comparison with other opioid drugs for the management of chronic pain and are associated with low trial withdrawal rate and better patient satisfaction.

Long-term efficacy and safety of oxycodone-naloxone prolonged-release formulation (up to 180/90 mg daily) - results of the open-label extension phase of a phase III multicenter, multiple-dose, randomized, controlled study

Background

The inclusion of naloxone with oxycodone in a fixed combination prolonged‐release formulation (OXN PR) improves bowel function compared with oxycodone (Oxy) alone without compromising analgesic efficacy. In a recent 5‐week, randomized, double‐blind comparative trial of OXN PR and OxyPR, it could be shown that the beneficial properties of OXN PR extend to doses up to 160/80 mg.

Methods

Bowel function, pain, quality of life (QoL) and safety of OXN PR up to 180/90 mg daily were evaluated in a 24‐week open‐label extension phase of the 5‐week randomized comparative study in patients with non‐malignant or malignant pain requiring opioids and suffering from opioid‐induced constipation.

Results

During treatment with a mean (SD) daily dose OXN PR of 130.7 (26.56) mg (median, maximum: 120 and 180 mg), the Bowel Function Index (BFI) decreased from 45.3 (26.37) to 26.7 (21.37) with the largest decrease seen in the first week. The average pain over the last 24 h remained stable (median Pain Intensity Scale score 4.0) and QoL was maintained throughout the study. Adverse events were consistent with the known effects of OXN PR and no new safety concerns emerged. Equivalent efficacy and safety benefits were observed in cancer patients.

Conclusions

The OXN PR in doses up to 180/90 mg provides effective analgesia with maintenance of bowel function during long‐term treatment. The beneficial effects of such dose levels of OXN PR contribute to stable patient‐reported QoL and health status despite serious underlying pain conditions, such as cancer.

Significance

In patients with pain requiring continuous opioid therapy at doses above 80 mg of oxycodone, stable and effective long‐term analgesia can be achieved using OXN PR up to 180/90 mg daily without compromising bowel function and may be preferential to supplemental oxycodone.

The efficacy of standard laxative use for the prevention and treatment of opioid induced constipation during oxycodone use: a small Dutch observational pilot study

BACKGROUND

Dutch clinical guidelines recommend that a standard laxative treatment (SLT) should be prescribed concomitantly when starting opioid treatment to prevent opioid-induced constipation (OIC).

METHODS

Clinical evidence for SLT in the treatment of OIC is lacking, therefore an observational pilot study was performed to explore the efficacy and tolerability of SLT on OIC in patients treated with the opioid oxycodone.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients (58% female, median (range) age 65 (39-92)) were included in this pilot study. The analysis showed that 9 out of 21 patients (43%) were non-responders to SLT. When also taking into consideration patients tending to develop diarrhea 75% of patients are non-responsive to SLT.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study indicates that optimal laxative therapy (SLT) might not be effective and feasible for the prevention and treatment of OIC.

Treatment of Severe Pain and Opioid-induced Constipation: An Observational Study of Quality of Life, Resource Use, and Costs in Sweden

INTRODUCTION

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a common and costly side effect of opioid treatment affecting patients' quality of life (QoL). The combination oxycodone/naloxone reduces OIC while providing effective analgesia in patients with moderate to severe pain. The objective of this observational study was to compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL), healthcare resource use, and costs in patients with severe pain who were initially treated with oxycodone and laxatives and then subsequently switched to treatment with oxycodone/naloxone.

METHODS

Data were collected by means of questionnaires completed by patients with OIC before and after the initiation of oxycodone/naloxone treatment at different clinical centers in Sweden. The questionnaires included questions on healthcare resource use and absence from work and also consisted of the Patient Assessment of Constipation-QoL (PAC-QoL) instrument, the EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D), the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) instrument, and the Bowel Function Index (BFI).

RESULTS

The analysis included 37 patients. Resource utilization was lower after treatment with oxycodone/naloxone, in terms of both the number of healthcare contacts and the purchases of medicine for the treatment of constipation. According to the BFI score, patients had fewer problems with OIC after the initiation of oxycodone/naloxone. The PAC-QoL score showed a positive change for patients in both the 96-point dissatisfaction index and the 16-point satisfaction index. PAC-SYM scores was lower after the initiation of oxycodone/naloxone treatment, indicating fewer constipation-related problems.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with oxycodone/naloxone had an overall positive effect on patients, consisting mainly of decreasing the severity of the constipation problems, increasing HRQoL, and decreasing the use of healthcare resources.

FUNDING

Mundipharma AB, Gothenburg, Sweden.

The effect of naloxone treatment on opioid-induced side effects: A meta-analysis of randomized and controlled trails

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the effects of naloxone on opioid-induced side effects, the present meta-analysis was constructed.

METHODS

Electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and CNKI (China National Knowledge Internet) were used for literature search. Studies on comparison of opioid-side effects between naloxone-treated group and placebo or normal saline-related group were included in the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity analysis was performed with Chi-square and I test. Pooled analysis was based on fixed-effects model, if heterogeneity between the eligible studies was negligible (I < 50%, P > 0.05), otherwise, random-effects model was used. Sensitivity analysis was applied to assess the robustness of the results and publication bias was evaluated by Begg and Egger test.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies including 1138 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis indicated that naloxone could significantly reduce the occurrence of pruritus (RR [risk ratio] = 0.252, 95% CI [confidence interval] = 0.137-0.464), nausea (RR = 0.323, 95% CI = 0.245-0.428), and vomiting (RR = 0.338, 95% CI = 0.192-0.593) which were induced by opioids. However, naloxone did not relieve pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.052, 95% CI = -0.453 to 0.348) and somnolence (RR = 0.561, 95% CI = 0.287 to 1.097) in patients received opioid treatment. Additionally, there were no significant publication bias between the included studies (Begg test, P = 0.602; Egger test, P = 0.388).

CONCLUSION

Addition of naloxone might act as an effective treatment for prophylaxis of opioid-induced pruritus, nausea, and vomiting in clinical practice.