Laxative utilization over time in chronic pain patients with opioid-induced constipation

Effect of opioids on constipation in critically ill patients: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis evaluated the effect of opioids on constipation in ICU patients.

REVIEW METHOD USED

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang DATA databases.

REVIEW METHODS

Random or fixed-effects meta-analyses were used. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the definition of constipation (three vs. six days), opioids (fentanyl vs. morphine), study design (prospective vs. retrospective), adjustment of confounders (No vs. Yes), and patient's age (adults vs. children). We used sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of results with significant statistical heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Seven studies (2264 patients) were included. Opioid use in ICU patients was associated with an increased risk of constipation (relative risk [RR]=1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.05 to 1.24; I2=49.8%). Subgroup analysis further showed that adjustment form, category of opioid, study design, and patient's age significantly influenced the relationship between opioid use and the risk of constipation. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of pooled results.

CONCLUSION

Opioids significantly increase the risk of constipation in critically ill patients, especially children. It is worth noting that the adjustment of the constipation definition used for ICU significantly influenced the relationship between opioid use and the risk of constipation. Therefore, It is necessary to clearly define ICU constipation and conduct time-based layered treatment. Additional prospective studies are needed to investigate the consistent definition of ICU constipation.

Naldemedine versus placebo in opioid-induced constipation: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a frequent adverse event among patients receiving chronic pain therapy that is requiring opioids. Naldemedine was approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat OIC and appears to be more efficient than any other peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonist. This meta-analysis aimed at assessing the available data on naldemedine in terms of efficacy.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed and ClinicalTrials on 24 May 2022 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing naldemedine to placebo among patients reporting OIC.

RESULTS

Evaluation of 6 RCTs enrolling 2769 participants showed significantly greater respondence to treatment (OR=2.48; 95% CI: 2.02 to 3.06; p<0.00001), change in weekly spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) (mean difference=1.45; 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.76; p<0.00001), complete SBMs (mean difference=0.89; 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.17; p<0.00001) and SBMs without straining (mean difference=0.89; 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.17; p<0.00001) for patients treated with naldemedine. We found no difference in numeric pain rating scales after one (mean difference=0.05; 95% CI: -0.22 to 0.31; p=0.73) and two weeks of treatment (mean difference= -0.04; 95% CI: -0.31 to 0.22; p=0.75). Funding and clinical diversity were possible risks of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Naldemedine improves a variety of bowel function parameters while preserving analgesia, confirming its efficacy for patients with OIC. However, head-to-head trials are needed to establish naldemedine as treatment of first choice for laxative-refractory OIC.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022281353.

Prevalence of drug-induced constipation and severity of associated biopsychosocial effects in patients with nonmalignant pain: a cross-sectional review of depersonalized data from the German Pain e-Registry

BACKGROUND

Drug-induced constipation (DIC) is a well-known comorbidity of cancer pain, however, data on its prevalence in nonmalignant pain (NMP) and its biopsychosocial effects are few.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence and impact of DIC in patients with NMP.

METHODS

Exploratory noninterventional, retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of depersonalized routine data of the German Pain e-Registry on 150,488 NMP patients (EUPAS identifier: 42286).

RESULTS

DIC affects 33.5% of NMP patients. The most prevalent risk factors were the use of strong opioid analgesics and analgesic polymedication. Patients with DIC presented with significantly worse biopsychosocial scores as well as significantly higher percentages of individuals with severe deterioration of pain, daily life activities, physical and mental quality of life, mood, and overall wellbeing. Among patients with DIC, those who reported constipation as a clinical symptom and who documented bowel-function index (BFI) scores above the reference range were significantly more affected compared to those who either reported only constipation as an adverse event or elevated BFI scores. 55.9% of patients with DIC reported the use of laxatives, mostly over-the-counter preparations (43.6%), whereas prescription laxatives were taken by only 29.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

DIC is a frequent comorbidity of pain management and affects around one-third of patients with NMP. It interferes significantly with pain-related biopsychosocial effects and has to be addressed specifically to improve the overall burden in affected patients. However, the use of laxatives was significantly less frequent than recommended indicating significant room for improvement.

A meta-analysis of naldemedine for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation

INTRODUCTION

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a common adverse effect in patients under long-term opioid therapy. Naldemedine is a novel peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists being developed for the treatment of OIC without affecting central analgesia. This meta-analysis is to assess the current evidence for efficacy and safety of naldemedine for the treatment of OIC. Areas covered: We searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library, 'ISRCTN Register' and'ClinicalTrials.gov' (up to Aug 2018). Our final review included five randomized clinical trials (1751 participants in total), three trials observed naldemedine for the treatment of OIC in non-cancer patients and two trials in cancer patients. A Random Effects model was used for all comparisons. Subgroup analyses for the following subgroups were carried out: naldemedine 0.1 mg; 0.2 mg; 0.4 mg; cancer patients; non-cancer patients. Expert opinion: Naldemedine improved the proportion of responders and spontaneous bowel movements frequency. The incidence of serious adverse effects (AEs) in naldemedine group was higher than placebo, especially in cancer patient subgroup. The AEs occurred in participants with naldemedine were mild to moderate and well tolerated during treatment. The results of this network meta-analysis will guide the future researchers in evaluating naldemedine for the treatment of OIC.

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.

Chronic opioids in gastroparesis: Relationship with gastrointestinal symptoms, healthcare utilization and employment

AIM

To examine the relationship of chronic scheduled opioid use on symptoms, healthcare utilization and employment in gastroparesis (Gp) patients.

METHODS

Patients referred to our tertiary care academic center from May 2016 to July 2017, with established diagnosis or symptoms suggestive of Gp filled out the Patient Assessment of Upper GI Symptoms, abdominal pain and demographics questionnaires, and underwent gastric emptying and blood tests. They were asked about taking pain medicines and the types, doses, and duration. We used Mann Whitney U test, Analysis of Variance, Student's t test and χ2 tests where appropriate for data analyses.

RESULTS

Of 223 patients with delayed gastric emptying, 158 (70.9%) patients were not taking opioids (GpNO), 22 (9.9%) were taking opioids only as needed, while 43 (19.3%) were on chronic (> 1 mo) scheduled opioids (GpCO), of which 18 were taking opioids for reasons that included gastroparesis and/or stomach pain. Median morphine equivalent use was 60 mg per day. GpCO reported higher severities of many gastrointestinal symptoms compared to GpNO including nausea (mean ± SE of mean of 4.09 ± 0.12 vs 3.41 ± 0.12, P = 0.011), retching (2.86 ± 0.25 vs 1.98 ± 0.14, P = 0.003), vomiting (2.93 ± 0.24 vs 2.07 ± 0.15, P = 0.011), early satiety (4.17 ± 0.19 vs 3.57 ± 0.12, P = 0.004), post-prandial fullness (4.14 ± 0.18 vs 3.63 ± 0.11, P = 0.022), loss of appetite (3.64 ± 0.21 vs 3.04 ± 0.13, P = 0.039), upper abdominal pain (3.86 ± 0.20 vs 2.93 ± 0.13, P = 0.001), upper abdominal discomfort (3.74 ± 0.19 vs 3.09 ± 0.13, P = 0.031), heartburn during day (2.55 ± 0.27 vs 1.89 ± 0.13, P = 0.032), heartburn on lying down (2.76 ± 0.28 vs 1.94 ± 0.14, P = 0.008), chest discomfort during day (2.42 ± 0.20 vs 1.83 ± 0.12, P = 0.018), chest discomfort at night (2.40 ± 0.23 vs 1.61 ± 0.13, P = 0.003), regurgitation/reflux during day (2.77 ± 0.25 vs 2.18 ± 0.13, P = 0.040) and bitter/acid/sour taste in the mouth (2.79 ± 0.27 vs 2.11 ± 0.14, P = 0.028). GpCO had a longer duration of nausea per day (median of 7 h vs 4 h for GpNO, P = 0.037), and a higher number of vomiting episodes per day (median of 3 vs 2 for GpNO, P = 0.002). Their abdominal pain more frequently woke them up at night (78.1% vs 57.3%, P = 0.031). They had a lower employment rate (33.3% vs 54.2%, P = 0.016) and amongst those who were employed less number of working hours per week (median of 23 vs 40, P = 0.005). They reported higher number of hospitalizations in the last 1 year (mean ± SE of mean of 2.90 ± 0.77 vs 1.26 ± 0.23, P = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

GpCO had a higher severity of many gastrointestinal symptoms, compared to GpNO. Hospitalization rates were more than 2-fold higher in GpCO than GpNO. GpCO also had lower employment rate and working hours, when compared to GpNO.