Impact and Consequences of Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Survey of Patients

Safe Management of Adverse Effects Associated with Prescription Opioids in the Palliative Care Population: A Narrative Review

In the palliative care population, prescription opioids are often considered viable pain relief options. However, in this complex patient population, the adverse effects of opioid medications should be identified and managed without delay. Common adverse effects can include constipation, nausea, somnolence, dizziness, vomiting, and pruritus. Less common adverse effects can include potentially lethal respiratory depression and cardiovascular effects. Critical aspects of safe opioid prescribing are recognition of side effects and knowledge of effective management strategies; prompt management is necessary for uninterrupted pain relief. Most complications are managed with general approaches such as dose reduction, opioid rotation, alternate routes of administration, and symptomatic management. The only opioid-induced complication for which US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments currently exist is constipation. Treating laxative-refractory opioid-induced constipation (OIC) with peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs), which block gastrointestinal opioid receptors, can restore gastrointestinal motility and fluid secretion. This narrative review discusses key complications of prescription opioid treatment and their management in the palliative care setting.

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.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Naloxegol in Patients with Chronic Non-Cancer Pain Who Experience Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Pooled Analysis of Two Global, Randomized Controlled Studies

Objective

This study evaluates the onset, magnitude, and consistency of improvement of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) symptoms with naloxegol treatment.

Methods

This was a pooled analysis of two Phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies (KODIAC-04/05, NCT01309841/NCT01323790) in patients with chronic non-cancer pain and OIC treated with naloxegol 25mg or 12.5mg daily. This analysis assessed improvements in response rates, frequency of spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) and complete SBMs (CSBM), OIC constipation symptoms (straining, stool consistency), time to first post-dose SBM and CSBM, and onset of adverse events over the 12-week period.

Subjects

The population of 1337 subjects had a mean age of 52 years and mean duration of opioid use of 3.6 years at baseline. Mean SBM frequency was 1.4/week.

Results

Naloxegol 25mg and 12.5mg demonstrated significantly higher response rates vs placebo (PBO) [41.9% (P < 0.001), 37.8% (P = 0.008), 29.4% respectively]. Rapid (within 1 week) and sustained (over 12 weeks) symptom improvement was significantly greater for naloxegol vs PBO (P < 0.05). Both doses showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in straining, stool consistency, number of SBMs and CSBMs/wk. Significantly shorter times to first post-dose SBM and CSBM were observed with naloxegol vs PBO (SBM HR: 25mg = 1.90, 12.5mg= 1.60; CSBM HR: 25mg = 1.42, 12.5mg = 1.36; P < 0.001 for each regimen). Adverse events occurred more frequently in the naloxegol 25mg group and were most frequently reported during the first week.

Conclusion

In patients with chronic non-cancer pain, naloxegol 25mg and 12.5mg demonstrated significantly higher response rates and rapid and sustained improvements in OIC symptoms compared with PBO.

Recommendations for the management of opioid-induced constipation - how to improve usability in clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Opioid-induced constipation remains undertreated despite effective and safe treatment options exists. Previous guidelines have only been partially effective in improving management, possibly due to their complexity, and studies suggest that a simple setup of concise and behaviorally-orientated steps improves usability.

AREAS COVERED

This article introduces the concept of opioid-induced constipation and provides an overview of existing guidelines in this field. We also propose simplified recommendations for managing opioid-induced constipation, derived from a synthesis of current guidelines and the principles of optimal guideline design theory.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite standard treatment with laxatives and fluid intake in patients with opioid-induced constipation, escalation of treatment is often needed where μ-opioid receptor antagonists or newer medications such as lubiprostone, linaclotide, or prucalopride are used. Previous guidelines have not been used sufficiently and thus management of the condition is often insufficient. We therefore propose simplified recommendations to management, which we believe can come into broader use. It was validated in primary care for credibility, clarity, relevance, usability, and overall benefit. We believe that this initiative can lead to better management of the substantial proportion of patients suffering from side effects of opioids.

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.

Constipation Severity and Quality of Life among Patients with Cancer Who Received Prophylactic Laxatives: Quasi-Experimental Study

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic laxatives were associated with decreasing the incidence of Opioid-induced constipation among patients with cancer. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of early prophylactic laxatives therapy on the severity of constipation and quality of life among patients with cancer receiving opioids.

METHODS

Using a quasi-experimental design with 64 patients assigned to control group and 66 patients assigned to intervention group. The final sample was composed from 112 patients (57 in control group and 55 in intervention group), who were selected from an oncology clinic. Patients in the intervention group have received prophylactical laxatives The intervention included an oral colonic stimulant laxative (i.e., Bisacodyl, Dose= 3 tab/ day and/or Senna 6.8 mg twice daily) and an oral colonic osmotic laxative (i.e., Lactulose, Dose = 15 ml three times per day). Patients in the control group continue to receive their routine care without laxatives.

RESULTS

Patients in the intervention group have reported a significant reduction in the severity of constipation symptoms at eight weeks post the intervention (p &lt; 0.001). Furthermore, the patients in the intervention group have revealed a significant improvement in their quality of life (QoL) (p&lt; 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with cancer need to use the first line of laxatives as prophylactic alongside with opioids to minimize the severity of Opioid-induced constipation symptoms and to enhance the QoL.

A Survey of the Incidence of Constipation in Patients with Chronic Non-cancer Pain Using Opioid Analgesics in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Although opioids have potent analgesic properties, their use is associated with side effects, including opioid-induced constipation (OIC). This study investigated the incidence of OIC based on the Rome IV diagnostic criteria in patients using opioid analgesics for chronic non-cancer pain and to explore and compare the risk factors for the development of OIC in opioid analgesic users.

METHODS

We surveyed patients aged 20 years or more living in Japan via the internet; who had been using opioid or non-opioid analgesics (N = 500 each) for at least 3 months for relief from chronic non-cancer musculoskeletal pain (low back pain or osteoarthritis); and who provided electronic consent to participate in and complete the survey. The groups were matched for age and sex.

RESULTS

Of the patients using opioid analgesics, 89% were taking weak opioids. The proportion of patients perceiving constipation was comparable between the opioid and non-opioid analgesic groups (34% vs 29%, respectively); however, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the opioid group, compared to the non-opioid group, reported self-assessed constipation (40% vs 18%, respectively) after using an analgesic and fulfilled two or more symptoms of the Rome IV diagnostic criteria for constipation (28% vs 19%, respectively). A higher proportion of patients were taking prescribed medicine for constipation in the opioid group compared with the non-opioid group (33% vs 18%, respectively). Low back pain, but not opioid strength and scheduled dosing, was identified as a risk factor for OIC among various covariates assessed in the logistic regression analysis in 81 patients with OIC and Rome IV diagnosis vs 419 patients without OIC in the opioid group.

CONCLUSION

Use of opioid analgesics, including weak opioids, for treating chronic non-cancer musculoskeletal pain is associated with OIC. This finding highlights the need for appropriate treatment of constipation in patients with chronic non-cancer pain in Japan.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000043985.

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.

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.

Impact of opioid-induced constipation on opioid substitution therapy management: the patient perspective

Background

Although opioid-induced bowel dysfunction is a well-known and frequent adverse event correlated with opioids, it is scarcely investigated in patients on opioid substitution treatment (OST) and no standard of care is currently available for this population. We aimed to explore the opinion of patients on the impact of constipation on the management of OST and quality of life (QoL).

Methods

We performed a survey that was directed to opioid-dependent patients treated with OST and followed-up in a Service for Addiction Treatment in Italy. The questionnaire included questions about sociodemographic characteristics, the experience of constipation, general QoL, OST management, interference of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) with opioid management, the experience of OIC treatment in the health system, and risk factors for constipation.

Results

Constipation at the moment of the survey (n=105) was reported by 81% of patients and was the most frequent adverse event of OST; 73% of respondents reported at least one severe or very severe symptom of constipation in the last 2 weeks. OIC was reported to hinder adherence to OST by 33% of respondents and 38% of them felt that control of craving had been more difficult since initiation of constipation. Overall, 34% of patients interfered with their OST by changing the schedule on their own in an attempt to improve constipation. Patients were proactive in looking for a solution for constipation but reported poor help from the healthcare system.

Conclusion

Our patient-based survey suggests that careful and efficient management of constipation could increase adherence to OST and improve patient satisfaction and QoL.

Efficacy and Safety of Peripherally Acting μ-Opioid Receptor Antagonist (PAMORAs) for the Management of Patients With Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Systematic Review

In treating chronic and acute pain, opioids are widely used. Although they do provide analgesia, their usage does come with adverse events (AEs). One of the most burdensome is opioid-induced bowel dysfunction, and more specifically opioid-induced constipation (OIC). The pathogenesis of these AEs is well known as the consequence of the action of opioids on m-receptors in the enteric nervous system. In recent years, medicines counteracting this specific action at the receptors have been registered for clinical use: the peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs). The knowledge of their comparative efficacy and tolerability is very important for physicians and patients in opioid therapy. This systematic review of the existing literature on PAMORAs aimed to study the relative clinical advantages and disadvantages. The most important data banks, including "PubMed," "Embase," "CT.gov," "ICTRP" and "CINAHL" were used to find the published material on PAMORAs. The selected publications were examined to systematically analyze the efficacy and safety of the four existing PAMORAs. All of the medications are superior to placebo in reducing OIC. There are few published data on alvimopan used to treat OIC, and it is only indicated for the treatment of post-abdominal surgery ileus. Methylnaltrexone is studied mainly in its subcutaneous (SC) formulation. When used in its oral formulation, it seems more rapid than naloxegol and placebo in the reduction of OIC. Naldemedine is able to produce more spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) when compared to alvimopan and naloxegol. Tolerability was found to be similar for all of them. In particular, they affect the gastrointestinal tract (GI), with flatulence and diarrhea, especially at high dosages. For some of them, nasopharyngitis and abdominal pain were observed as treatment adverse effects (TEAs). Several cardiovascular TEAs were reported after methylnaltrexone use, but it is not clear whether they were consequences of the drug or related to the general conditions of the patients. Considering the existing data, naloxegol and naldemedine seem to be the best choices, with a higher number of spontaneous bowel movements following naldemedine administration.