Common Clinical Practice for Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Physician Survey

Opioid Use and Gut Dysbiosis in Cancer Pain Patients

Opioids are commonly used for the management of severe chronic cancer pain. Their well-known pharmacological effects on the gastrointestinal system, particularly opioid-induced constipation (OIC), are the most common limiting factors in the optimization of analgesia, and have led to the wide use of laxatives and/or peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs). A growing interest has been recently recorded in the possible effects of opioid treatment on the gut microbiota. Preclinical and clinical data, as presented in this review, showed that alterations of the gut microbiota play a role in modulating opioid-mediated analgesia and tolerability, including constipation. Moreover, due to the bidirectional crosstalk between gut bacteria and the central nervous system, gut dysbiosis may be crucial in modulating opioid reward and addictive behavior. The microbiota may also modulate pain regulation and tolerance, by activating microglial cells and inducing the release of inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, which sustain neuroinflammation. In the subset of cancer patients, the clinical meaning of opioid-induced gut dysbiosis, particularly its possible interference with the efficacy of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, is still unclear. Gut dysbiosis could be a new target for treatment in cancer patients. Restoring the physiological amount of specific gut bacteria may represent a promising therapeutic option for managing gastrointestinal symptoms and optimizing analgesia for cancer patients using opioids.

Dual Antagonism of α9α10 nAChR and GABAB Receptor-Coupled CaV2.2 Channels by an Analgesic αO-Conotoxin Analogue

Pain severely affects the physical and mental health of patients. The need to develop nonopioid analgesic drugs to meet medical demands is urgent. In this study, we designed a truncated analogue of αO-conotoxin, named GeX-2, based on disulfide-bond deletion and sequence truncation. GeX-2 retained the potency of its parent peptide at the human α9α10 nAChR and exhibited potent inhibitory activity at CaV2.2 channels via activation of the GABAB receptor (GABABR). Importantly, GeX-2 significantly alleviated pain in the rat model of chronic constriction injury. The dual inhibition of GeX-2 at both α9α10 nAChRs and CaV2.2 channels is speculated to synergistically mediate the potent analgesic effects. Results from site-directed mutagenesis assay and computational modeling suggest that GeX-2 preferentially interacts with the α10(+)α10(-) binding site of α9α10 nAChR and favorably binds to the top region of the GABABR2 subunit. The study offers vital insights into the molecular action mechanism of GeX-2, demonstrating its potential as a novel nonopioid analgesic.

Iatrogenic Side Effects of Pain Therapies

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

Adherence to coprescribing of laxatives with opioids and associated characteristics in general practices in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend to prescribe a laxative with an opioid to prevent constipation. We aimed to determine the adherence by general practitioners (GPs) to this recommendation and to explore which GP- and patient related factors were associated with it from the perspective of the GP.  METHODS: We conducted an observational study using GPs' prescription data from the Nivel Primary Care Database combined with a questionnaire asking for reasons of non-adherence. The proportion of first opioid prescriptions prescribed together with a laxative was determined as primary outcome. Possible explanatory factors such as the quality of registration, the level of collaboration with the pharmacy, familiarity with the recommendation and use of a clinical decision support system were explored, as were the self-reported reasons for non-adherence (classified as either GP-related or patient-related). We assessed the association of factors with the primary outcome using univariable multilevel logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The recommendation was measured in 195 general practices. The median proportion of first opioid prescriptions prescribed together with a laxative in these practices was 54% (practice range 18-88%). None of the determinants was consistently associated with the primary outcome. GPs from 211 practices filled out the questionnaire and the most frequently mentioned reason not to prescribe a laxative was that the patient has laxatives in stock, followed by that the patient doesn't want a laxative; both were patient-related factors.

CONCLUSION

There was room for improvement in following the guideline on laxative prescribing in opioid use. A main reason seemed to be that the patient refuses a laxative. Improvement measures should therefore focus on communication between GPs and patients on the relevance of co-using a laxative with opioids. Future studies need to establish the effect of such improvement measures, and determine whether reasons for non-adherence to the guideline changed over time.

The Impact of P-Glycoprotein on Opioid Analgesics: What's the Real Meaning in Pain Management and Palliative Care?

Opioids are widely used in cancer and non-cancer pain management. However, many transporters at the blood-brain barrier (BBB), such as P-glycoprotein (P-gp, ABCB1/MDR1), may impair their delivery to the brain, thus leading to opioid tolerance. Nonetheless, opioids may regulate P-gp expression, thus altering the transport of other compounds, namely chemotherapeutic agents, resulting in pharmacoresistance. Other kinds of painkillers (e.g., acetaminophen, dexamethasone) and adjuvant drugs used for neuropathic pain may act as P-gp substrates and modulate its expression, thus making pain management challenging. Inflammatory conditions are also believed to upregulate P-gp. The role of P-gp in drug-drug interactions is currently under investigation, since many P-gp substrates may also act as substrates for the cytochrome P450 enzymes, which metabolize a wide range of xenobiotics and endobiotics. Genetic variability of the ABCB1/MDR1 gene may be accountable for inter-individual variation in opioid-induced analgesia. P-gp also plays a role in the management of opioid-induced adverse effects, such as constipation. Peripherally acting mu-opioid receptors antagonists (PAMORAs), such as naloxegol and naldemedine, are substrates of P-gp, which prevent their penetration in the central nervous system. In our review, we explore the interactions between P-gp and opioidergic drugs, with their implications in clinical practice.

Current and Future Therapeutic Options in Pain Management: Multi-mechanistic Opioids Involving Both MOR and NOP Receptor Activation

Opioids are widely used in chronic pain management, despite major concerns about their risk of adverse events, particularly abuse, misuse, and respiratory depression from overdose. Multi-mechanistic opioids, such as tapentadol and buprenorphine, have been widely studied as a valid alternative to traditional opioids for their safer profile. Special interest was focused on the role of the nociceptin opioid peptide (NOP) receptor in terms of analgesia and improved tolerability. Nociceptin opioid peptide receptor agonists were shown to reinforce the antinociceptive effect of mu opioid receptor (MOR) agonists and modulate some of their adverse effects. Therefore, multi-mechanistic opioids involving both MOR and NOP receptor activation became a major field of pharmaceutical and clinical investigations. Buprenorphine was re-discovered in a new perspective, as an atypical analgesic and as a substitution therapy for opioid use disorders; and buprenorphine derivatives have been tested in animal models of nociceptive and neuropathic pain. Similarly, cebranopadol, a full MOR/NOP receptor agonist, has been clinically evaluated for its potent analgesic efficacy and better tolerability profile, compared with traditional opioids. This review overviews pharmacological mechanisms of the NOP receptor system, including its role in pain management and in the development of opioid tolerance. Clinical data on buprenorphine suggest its role as a safer alternative to traditional opioids, particularly in patients with non-cancer pain; while data on cebranopadol still require phase III study results to approve its introduction on the market. Other bifunctional MOR/NOP receptor ligands, such as BU08028, BU10038, and AT-121, are currently under pharmacological investigations and could represent promising analgesic agents for the future.

Opioid-Induced Constipation in Real-World Practice: A Physician Survey, 1 Year Later

INTRODUCTION

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is the most common adverse effect of opioid therapy, but it is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Last year, a survey among Italian healthcare providers revealed important differences in the clinical management of OIC across physician specialties, the need of standardization of diagnosis and treatment, and the urgency of further education. Herein, we submitted an updated version of the survey to the same cohort of experts to evaluate potential progress.

METHODS

The online survey included 15 questions about OIC. Responses were analyzed descriptively and aggregated by physician specialty.

RESULTS

A total of 190 physicians completed the survey. Most respondents (65%) did not feel adequately educated about OIC despite general consensus regarding interest in the topic and acknowledgement of OIC impact on patients' QoL and adherence to opioid therapy. Overall, 55-77% of physicians regularly evaluated intestinal function or OIC symptoms in patients receiving opioid therapy, with one-third of respondents implementing it in the past year. Even though the most common method for assessment was still patient diary, the use of specific scales underwent a small but significant increase compared to the previous year, with major implementation in the use of Rome IV criteria. As regards first-line treatment, most respondents (49%) preferred macrogol prophylaxis followed by macrogol plus another laxative. For second-line treatment, we revealed a growth in the prescription of peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs), with 46% of all the respondents having increased their use during the past year.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite some limitations, our study demonstrated a slow but important step closer to standardization of diagnosis and treatment of OIC. Further educational and training efforts should be put in place to favor best evidence-based clinical practice.

A National Study to Compare Effective Management of Constipation in Children Receiving Concurrent Versus Standard Hospice Care

Constipation is a distressing and uncomfortable symptom children experience at end of life. There is a gap in knowledge about how different approaches to hospice care delivery might improve pediatric symptom management of constipation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of pediatric concurrent hospice versus standard hospice care to manage constipation. Medicaid data (2011-2013) were analyzed. Children who were younger than 21 years enrolled in hospice care and had a hospice enrollment between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2013, were included. Instrumental variable analysis was used to test the effectiveness of concurrent versus standard hospice care. Among the 18 152 children, approximately 14% of participants were diagnosed or treated for constipation from a nonhospice provider during hospice enrollment. A higher proportion of children received nonhospice care for constipation in concurrent hospice care, compared with standard hospice (19.5% vs 13.2%), although this was not significant (β = .22, P < .05) after adjusting for covariates. The findings demonstrated that concurrent care was no more effective than standard hospice care in managing pediatric constipation. Hospice and nonhospice providers may be doing a sufficient job ordering bowel regimens before constipation becomes a serious problem for children at end of life.