Clinical evaluation of the efficacy of methylnaltrexone in resolving constipation induced by different opioid subtypes combined with laboratory analysis of immunomodulatory and antiangiogenic effects of methylnaltrexone

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.

More opioids, more constipation? Evaluation of longitudinal total oral opioid consumption and self-reported constipation in patients with cancer

PURPOSE

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a distressing physical symptom for patients with cancer taking opioids. Total opioid consumption may contribute to developing worsening OIC-related symptoms. We completed a retrospective analysis examining the association of total daily opioid consumption on self-reported constipation in patients with cancer.

METHODS

In over 5 clinic visits, we collected self-reported constipation scores and 24-h oral morphine equivalents (OME). We examined the association between OME and the presence of constipation (i.e., score > 3) and the relationship of OME between patients with or without constipation.

RESULTS

Of 297 patients with cancer, we observed 57.8% with constipation and 42.4% without constipation at the first clinic visit. Age was similar in both groups (54.2 ± 14.5 vs. 56.4 ± 14.8 years [mean ± SD]) and the majority of patients were women (63.7% vs. 61.1%). The most common cancer type in patients with constipation was non-colorectal gastrointestinal (n = 25, 14.6%), while in patients without constipation was colorectal gastrointestinal (n = 25; 19.8%). Across visits, we observed weak or no association between OME and self-reported constipation (r = 0.01-0.27). At the first visit, higher mean OME was seen in patients who self-reported constipation (133.4 vs 76; p < 0.05). Age, sex, metastatic disease, and stimulant laxative use were not associated with constipation.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed weak to no association between OME and constipation in patients with cancer. These results suggest a lack of a clear association between total opioid consumption and self-reported constipation.

Optimal treatment of opioid induced constipation in daily clinical practice - an observational study

Background

Opioids are prescribed in over 40% of patients with advanced cancer, but side effects occur frequently. In this study we evaluated the development and treatment of opioid induced constipation (OIC), and OIC resolving effect of methylnaltrexone for different opioid subtypes in daily clinical practice.

Methods

Patients with cancer using opioids were included in a retrospective chart analysis. Baseline characteristics, data on opioid use, laxative use, and OIC were collected. Patients with OIC who were prescribed methylnaltrexone, were included in a prospective observational trial (NCT01955213).

Results

Thirty-nine of 327 patients (pts) with cancer who were treated with opioids suffered from OIC (overall prevalence 12%; 95%-CI: 8–15%). The prevalence of OIC was similar in patients treated with oxycodone or fentanyl (12 of 81 pts. vs. 18 of 110 pts., RR 0.9; 95%CI 0.4–2.0). The morphine equivalent daily dose did not significantly differ between opioid subtypes (fentanyl 89 mg (IQR 60–180) vs. oxycodone 40 mg (40–80), P = 0.231). Twenty-two individual patients (7%) were admitted for OIC. Most effective laxatives in admitted patients were enemas, methylnaltrexone, or 4-l polyethylene-glycol solution. In the prospective observational study, the effect of methylnaltrexone could be evaluated in 23 patients. Eleven patients achieved the primary endpoint of ≥2 laxation responses out of the first four doses methylnaltrexone, independent of opioid subtype.

Conclusions

OIC is a burdensome clinical problem independent of opioid subtype. Timely intensification of prophylactic laxative treatment, especially when opioid doses increase, may help to prevent OIC. Clinically overt OIC requires a more intensive laxative regimen with for example methylnaltrexone.

Trial registration

NCT01955213.

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.

Endogenous Opiates and Behavior: 2015

This paper is the thirty-eighth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2015 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior, and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia, stress and social status, tolerance and dependence, learning and memory, eating and drinking, drug abuse and alcohol, sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology, mental illness and mood, seizures and neurologic disorders, electrical-related activity and neurophysiology, general activity and locomotion, gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions, cardiovascular responses, respiration and thermoregulation, and immunological responses.

Safety concerns with long-term opioid use

INTRODUCTION

The benefits of opioid therapy must be balanced by any adverse effects. In recent years, prescription opioids have been increasingly prescribed, but have also been associated with increased abuse, overdose and death.

AREAS COVERED

This review will categorize the common risks of opioid administration. Recognized adverse effects of opioid therapy include constipation, tolerance, endocrinopathies, sleep disorders, cognitive effects, respiratory depression, overdose and addiction. Studies have shown that there is increased risk of overdose and death with higher daily opioid doses, particularly above a morphine equivalent oral daily dose of 100 milligrams. Extended-release/long acting (ER/LA) opioid formulations may be beneficial for the compliant patient, yet may expose a higher risk for abuse if used inappropriately since each tablet carries a larger dose of medication.

EXPERT OPINION

Prospective, controlled one-year trials are needed to establish the efficacy and safety profile of chronic opioid therapy. In addition to the well known side effects of chronic opioid therapy, the influence and serious effect of opioids on sleep and central sleep apnea is only recently being investigated. The lowest possible daily opioid must be used to manage chronic pain, and all clinicians should be cautious in the use of daily morphine equivalent doses above 50-100 milligrams.

Methylnaltrexone for opioid-induced constipation: review and meta-analyses for objective plus subjective efficacy and safety outcomes

Introduction

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a frequent adverse event that impairs patients’ quality of life. This article evaluates the objective plus subjective efficacy and the safety of methylnaltrexone (MNTX) in OIC patients.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials from a recent systematic review were included. In addition, a PubMed search was conducted for January 2014 to December 21, 2015. We included randomized controlled trials with adult OIC patients, MNTX as study drug, and OIC as primary outcome. Results were categorized in three outcome types: objective outcome measures (eg, time to laxation), patient-reported outcomes (eg, straining), and global burden measures (eg, constipation distress). Dichotomous meta-analyses with risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using RevMan 5.3. Only comparisons between MNTX and placebo were made.

Results

We included seven studies with 1,860 patients. A meta-analysis revealed that patients under MNTX had considerably more rescue-free bowel movement within 4 hours after the first dose (RR 3.74, 95% CI 2.87 to 4.86; five studies, n=938; I²=0). Results of the review indicated that patients under MNTX had a higher stool frequency and needed less time to laxation compared with placebo. Moreover, patients receiving MNTX tended to have better values in patient-reported outcomes and global burden measures. Meta-analyses on safety revealed that patients under MNTX experienced more abdominal pain (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.75 to 3.23; six studies, n=1,412; I²=60%) but showed a nonsignificant tendency in nausea (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.78; six studies, n=1,412; I²=12%) and diarrhea (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.24; five studies, n=1,258; I²=45%). The incidence of MNTX-related serious adverse events was 0.2% (4/1,860).

Conclusion

MNTX has been shown to be effective and safe. Future randomized controlled trials should consequently incorporate objective outcome measures, patient-reported outcomes, and global burden measures, and research the efficacy of MNTX in other populations, for example, patients under opioids after surgical procedures.

Current and Emerging Medical Therapies for Gastroparesis

OPINION STATEMENT

Gastroparesis likely involves various pathophysiological disorders and is increasingly prevalent as complications of surgeries, medications, and chronic diabetes. Key to diagnosis is evidence of delayed gastric emptying, generally based on standardized scintigraphy, and ruling out distal obstruction or other dysmotilities. Initial medical management includes reviewing potentially exacerbating medications and ruling out other reversible causes, achieving tighter glucose control in diabetics, and implementing dietary and lifestyle changes. While current available medications are limited, symptomatic control is aimed at improving gastric emptying, alleviating nausea and vomiting, and treating associated abdominal pain. Other potential therapies are aimed at reducing acid production, improving gastric accommodation or pyloric dysfunction, and treating bacterial overgrowth. Future studies should be aimed toward identification of subpopulations of gastroparetics who are better responders to the various medications based on differences in underlying pathophysiology and adopting standardized study end point measures that may allow for comparisons across trials. This chapter will review current treatment options, upcoming promising medications, and some of the hurdles in advancing the field forward.