Opioid-induced constipation in patients with cancer: a "real-world," multicentre, observational study of diagnostic criteria and clinical features

'Constipation': One word, many meanings amongst persons with cancer: An observational study

BACKGROUND

Constipation is common in people with advanced cancer and is associated with significant morbidity and health economic burden, but it is often sub-optimally managed. Despite international consensus diagnostic criteria for functional and opioid-induced constipation (Rome IV diagnostic criteria), the term 'constipation' means different things to different people, impacting assessment, diagnosis and management.

AIM

To investigate the association between persons with advanced cancer self-reporting of constipation, response to the Rome IV diagnostic criteria statements for opioid-induced constipation and differences according to personal demographics.

DESIGN

Multicentre prospective observational study.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-four community, hospice and hospital research sites in 10 European countries recruited 1200 adults with cancer taking opioids for cancer/cancer-treatment related pain.

RESULTS

In response to the simple question 'Are you constipated?', 549 (45.5%) participants replied 'yes', 588 (49%) replied 'no' and 59 (5%) were 'unsure', but 713 (59.5%) participants met the Rome IV diagnostic criteria. Only 439 (61.5%) participants that met these criteria answered the simple question positively, whilst 230 (39%) answered negatively, although there was a statistically significant association between responses to the simple question and the criteria (χ2(1, N = 1136) = 149.945, p = 0.00001). There were certain significant differences in self-reporting according to age and country of origin.

CONCLUSIONS

There is disparity between patients' self-reporting of constipation and the Rome IV diagnostic criteria. People with advanced cancer, especially those receiving opioid analgesics, need to be regularly assessed for constipation, but the use of a single question ('Are you constipated?') is inadequate.Registry: European Study of Opioid Induced Constipation (E-StOIC), NCT05149833, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05149833, 08/12/2021.

Buprenorphine: an old dog with new tricks

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The survival rate of patients with a cancer or palliative care diagnosis has improved over the years although pain remains a debilitating symptom that many patients still require treatment with opioids. Compared to full mu-opioid receptor agonists such as morphine and oxycodone, buprenorphine continues to remain a second- or third-line choice in this group of patients.We have reviewed the pharmacology and clinical utility of buprenorphine to stimulate debate around the first-line use of buprenorphine in the management of pain in cancer patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Buprenorphine has a pharmacological profile that is unique and unlike any other opioid. It is associated with many immediate and long-term benefits, with lower risks of adverse effects that make it an ideal first-line choice in the management of cancer pain.

SUMMARY

Buprenorphine appears to be a promising choice of opioid for cancer patients. Studies have found that buprenorphine is a safe and effective choice for many patients, making it a suitable first-line option for the management of cancer pain.

Naldemedine for Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients With Cancer: A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

Opioid-induced constipation is the most frequent and non-self-limiting adverse effect of opioid analgesia, reducing adherence and interfering with pain relief. This clinical trial aimed to clarify the preventive effect of naldemedine versus placebo for constipation in patients with cancer starting regularly dosed strong opioids therapy.

METHODS

This multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, confirmatory trial was conducted between July 2021 and May 2023 at four academic hospitals in Japan (Japan Registry of Clinical Trials identifier: jRCTs031200397). Patients with cancer starting a first-time regularly dosed strong opioid for cancer pain and age 20+ years were included. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to the naldemedine (Symproic 0.2 mg) or placebo group in a 1:1 ratio for 14 days with protocol treatment. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a Bowel Function Index (BFI) of <28.8 on day 14. The secondary end points included frequency of spontaneous bowel movements (SBM), quality of life (QOL), and frequency of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV).

RESULTS

Of the 103 patients assessed for eligibility, 99 received either naldemedine (n = 49) or placebo (n = 50). A BFI of <28.8 on day 14 was significantly more likely to occur in the naldemedine group (64.6%; 95% CI, 51.1 to 78.1) versus placebo (17.0%; 95% CI, 6.3 to 27.8), and the difference between groups was 47.6% (95% CI, 30.3 to 64.8; P < .0001). The frequency of SBM, QOL, and the severity of OINV were nominally significant in the naldemedine group than in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Naldemedine prevented constipation and improved constipation-related QOL, with possible preventive effect on OINV in patients with cancer starting regularly dosed opioids therapy.

Inadequate management of opioid-induced constipation in European cancer pain patients: results of a real-world, multicentre, observational study ("E-StOIC")

PURPOSE

The objectives of the study were to determine the prevalence of (uncontrolled) OIC, relevant medications / interventions employed by healthcare professionals, and the additional strategies utilised by patients, amongst European patients with cancer pain.

METHODS

This study was a prospective observational study conducted at 24 research sites in ten European countries. Cancer patients receiving opioid analgesics for at least a week were recruited, and asked to complete a questionnaire including background information, single question (Are you constipated?), Rome IV diagnostic criteria for OIC, Bowel Function Index (BFI), and Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life questionnaire (PAC-QOL). Participants were characterised as having / not having OIC on the basis of the Rome IV diagnostic criteria.

RESULTS

1200 participants completed the study. 59.5% met the Rome IV diagnostic criteria for OIC: only 61.5% that met these criteria self-reported constipation. 72% participants were prescribed a regular conventional laxative / peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonist (PAMORA). However, only 66% took their prescribed laxatives every day. Many participants had utilised other strategies / interventions to manage their OIC. Furthermore, 27% had needed to use suppositories, 26.5% had needed to use an enema, and 8% had had a manual evacuation. The use of PAMORAs, and other novel effective medications, was relatively uncommon.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that management in Europe is often inadequate, and this undoubtedly relates to a combination of inadequate assessment, inappropriate treatment, and inadequate reassessment.

Opioids and the Gastrointestinal Tract: The Role of Peripherally Active µ-Opioid Receptor Antagonists in Modulating Intestinal Permeability

Opioid receptors are found throughout the gastrointestinal tract, including the large intestine. Many patients treated with opioids experience opioid-induced constipation (OIC). Laxatives are not effective in most patients, and in those who do initially respond, the efficacy of laxatives generally diminishes over time. In addition, OIC does not spontaneously resolve for most patients. However, complications of opioids extend far beyond simply slowing gastrointestinal transit. Opioid use can affect intestinal permeability through a variety of mechanisms. Toll-like receptors are a crucial component of innate immunity and are tightly regulated within the gut epithelium. Pathologic µ-opioid receptor (MOR) and toll-like receptor signaling, resulting from chronic opioid exposure, disrupts intestinal permeability leading to potentially harmful bacterial translocation, elevated levels of bacterial toxins, immune activation, and increased cytokine production. Peripherally active MOR antagonists, including methylnaltrexone, are effective at treating OIC. Benefits extend beyond simply blocking the MOR; these agents also act to ameliorate opioid-induced disrupted intestinal permeability. In this review, we briefly describe the physiology of the gastrointestinal epithelial border and discuss the impact of opioids on gastrointestinal function. Finally, we consider the use of peripherally active MOR antagonists to treat disrupted intestinal permeability resulting from opioid use and discuss the potential for improved morbidity and mortality in patients treated with methylnaltrexone for opioid-induced bowel disorders.

The safety and effectiveness of naldemedine for opioid-induced constipation in patients with advanced cancer in real-world palliative care settings: a multicenter prospective observational study

PURPOSE

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of naldemedine for treating opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in patients with advanced cancer, who are receiving palliative care, and particularly explored its early effects.

METHODS

Palliative care teams and inpatient palliative care units across 14 institutions in Japan were included in this multicenter, prospective, observational study. Patients who were newly prescribed a daily oral dose of 0.2 mg naldemedine were enrolled. The spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) within 24 h after the first dose of naldemedine was considered the primary outcome, whereas, the secondary outcomes included weekly changes in SBM frequency and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 204 patients were enrolled and 184 completed the 7-day study. The average age of the participants (103 males, 101 females) was 63 ± 14 years. The primary cancer was detected in the lungs (23.5%), gastrointestinal tract (13.7%), and urological organs (9.3%). A considerable proportion of patients (34.8%) had ECOG performance status of 3-4. Most patients were undergoing active cancer treatment, however, 40.7% of the patients were receiving the best supportive care. Within 24 h of the first naldemedine dose, 146 patients (71.6%, 95% CI: 65.4-77.8%) experienced SBMs. The weekly SBM counts increased in 62.7% of the participants. The major adverse events included diarrhea and abdominal pain, detected in 17.6% and 5.4% of the patients, respectively. However, no serious adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSION

Conclusively, naldemedine is effective and safe for OIC treatments in real-world palliative care settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000031381, registered 20/02/2018.

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.

A comparison of the prevalence of dry mouth and other symptoms using two different versions of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System on an inpatient palliative care unit

BACKGROUND

Symptom assessment is key to effective symptom management and palliative care for patients with advanced cancer. Symptom prevalence and severity estimates vary widely, possibly dependent on the assessment tool used. Are symptoms specifically asked about or must the patients add them as additional symptoms? This study compared the prevalence and severity of patient-reported symptoms in two different versions of a multi-symptom assessment tool. In one version, three symptoms dry mouth, constipation, sleep problems were among those systematically assessed, while in the other, these symptoms had to be added as an "Other problem".

METHODS

This retrospective cross-sectional study included adult patients with advanced cancer at an inpatient palliative care unit. Data were collected from two versions of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): modified (ESAS-m) listed 11 symptoms and revised (ESAS-r) listed 9 and allowed patients to add one "Other problem". Seven similar symptoms were listed in both versions.

RESULTS

In 2013, 184 patients completed ESAS-m, and in 2017, 156 completed ESAS-r. Prevalence and severity of symptoms listed in both versions did not differ. In ESAS-m, 83% reported dry mouth, 73% constipation, and 71% sleep problems, but on ESAS-r, these symptoms were reported by only 3%, 15% and < 1%, respectively. Although ESAS-r severity scores for these three symptoms were higher than on ESAS-m, differences did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

We identified significant differences in patient symptom reporting based on whether symptoms like dry mouth, obstipation and sleep problems were specifically assessed or had to be added by patients as an "Other problem".

Opioid-induced constipation: a stepwise treatment algorithm feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is frequently undertreated in patients with advanced cancer. Our hypothesis is that the use of a stepwise treatment algorithm, supported by regular patient-reported outcome measures, should improve the management of OIC. The aim of this feasibility study was to determine whether a definitive study could be successfully completed.

METHODS

Patients with OIC (Rome Foundation diagnostic criteria positive), and a Bowel Function Index (BFI) score of ≥30, were recruited to the study. The study involved weekly assessments, and decisions about management were based on the current BFI score (and the tolerability of the current treatment). Management was based on a four-step treatment algorithm, developed from recent international guidelines.

RESULTS

One hundred patients entered the study, and 79 patients completed the study. Fifty-seven (72%) participants responded to treatment, with 34 (43%) participants having a 'complete' response (ie, final BFI<30) and 23 (29%) participants having a 'partial' response (ie, change in BFI≥12). In participants with a complete response, 73.5% were prescribed conventional laxatives, 12% were prescribed a peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonist (PAMORA) and 14.5% were prescribed a PAMORA and conventional laxative.

DISCUSSION

The feasibility study suggests that a definitive study can be successfully completed. However, we will amend the methodology to try to improve participant recruitment, participant retention and adherence to the treatment algorithm. The feasibility study also suggests that the use of the BFI to monitor OIC, and the use of a treatment algorithm to manage OIC, can result in clinically important improvements in OIC.Trial registration number NCT04404933.

Cancer management from a chronic gastrointestinal function perspective

Bowel dysfunction in cancer is a significant and challenging issue for both clinicians and patients. As cancer survival improves, the impact of gastrointestinal symptoms on quality of life is of ever-increasing relevance. This review aims to provide an overview of the common gastrointestinal complaints seen in cancer sufferers and discuss the principles of management and up to date treatment options available.

A Nationwide Hospital Claims Database Analysis of Real-World Patterns of Laxative Use for Opioid-Induced Constipation in Japanese Patients with Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is one of the most common side effects in patients with cancer treated with opioid analgesics. The actual use of laxatives for OIC in Japan remains unelucidated. This study aimed to investigate the real-world patterns of laxative use for patients with cancer who newly initiated opioid analgesic therapy.

METHODS

We used a Japanese nationwide hospital claims database (January 2018-December 2019). Patients with cancer newly receiving opioid analgesic therapy were included and classified on the basis of opioid classes (weak or strong) and route of administration (oral or transdermal) at initiation. The patients were divided into two groups on the basis of whether they received early medication (starting laxatives within 3 days after initiating opioid analgesic therapy), and patterns of laxative use were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 26,939 eligible patients, with 50.7% of them initiated with strong opioids. The proportion of patients who received early medication was 25.0% for weak opioids and 57.3% for strong opioids. Osmotic laxatives were most frequently used as first-line therapy in the early medication group (oral weak opioids: 12.3%, oral strong opioids: 29.4%, transdermal strong opioids: 12.8%). Stimulant laxatives were frequently used as first-line therapy, to the same extent or more than osmotic laxatives in the non-early medication group (oral weak opioids: 13.7%, oral strong opioids: 7.7%, transdermal strong opioids: 15.1%). Peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists were the second most frequently used in the early medication group for those on oral strong opioids (9.4%).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated for the first time that the patterns of laxative use for OIC in Japanese patients with cancer were different, depending on the opioid types at initiation and the timing of laxative medication.

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.

Use of Opioids for Adults With Pain From Cancer or Cancer Treatment: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide guidance on the use of opioids to manage pain from cancer or cancer treatment in adults.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature identified systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials of the efficacy and safety of opioid analgesics in people with cancer, approaches to opioid initiation and titration, and the prevention and management of opioid adverse events. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2010, to February 17, 2022. American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

The evidence base consisted of 31 systematic reviews and 16 randomized controlled trials. Opioids have primarily been evaluated in patients with moderate-to-severe cancer pain, and they effectively reduce pain in this population, with well-characterized adverse effects. Evidence was limited for several of the questions of interest, and the Expert Panel relied on consensus for these recommendations or noted that no recommendation could be made at this time.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Opioids should be offered to patients with moderate-to-severe pain related to cancer or active cancer treatment unless contraindicated. Opioids should be initiated PRN (as needed) at the lowest possible dose to achieve acceptable analgesia and patient goals, with early assessment and frequent titration. For patients with a substance use disorder, clinicians should collaborate with a palliative care, pain, and/or substance use disorder specialist to determine the optimal approach to pain management. Opioid adverse effects should be monitored, and strategies are provided for prevention and management.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Constipation in Cancer Patients - an Update of Clinical Evidence

OPINION STATEMENT

Constipation is one of the most frequent problems in cancer patients, and its etiology is multifactorial. It leads to decreased quality of life and impedes optimal pain treatment. Despite the high prevalence, constipation is frequently underdiagnosed mainly because of lack of validated diagnostic criteria or widely accepted definition of constipation in cancer patients. All cancer patients should be evaluated regularly for constipation, and concomitant causes and risk factors were assessed. Opioids are responsible for a much of the secondary constipation in cancer patients. The management of constipation in cancer patients should be multifaceted, addressing dietary and behavioral issues and optimizing pharmacological interventions. Prevention of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is pivotal, as treatment is often unsatisfactory or inefficient. Dietary and behavioral interventions should be considered. Non-pharmacological measures include hydration and nutrition, ensuring privacy during defecation, using a commode or footstool, and the availability of a caregiver. Abdominal massage may be of value. Traditional laxatives are recommended in prevention but not in the treatment of OIC. Peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORA) appear the first choice in the treatment and an alternative to laxatives in some recent clinical practice guidelines in preventing OIC. Naldemedine, naloxegol, and methylnaltrexone are supported by quality evidence for OIC management. Naloxone or naltrexone, taken orally in combined formulations with opioids, may be valuable in preventing or reducing OIC symptoms.

A Prospective, Real-World, Multinational Study of Naloxegol for Patients with Cancer Pain Diagnosed with Opioid-Induced Constipation-The NACASY Study

The Naloxegol Cancer Study (NACASY) was a multinational European study aimed to evaluate the 4-week safety and efficacy of naloxegol in a real-world setting in patients with cancer pain diagnosed with opioid-induced constipation. The primary safety endpoint was the incidence of adverse events leading to study discontinuation. We recruited 170 patients who received at least one dose of naloxegol (i.e., safety population). Out of 170 patients, 20 (11.8%, 95%CI 6.9-16.6) discontinued the study due to adverse events, and, of them, 12 (7.1%, 95%CI 3.2-10.9%) were study discontinuations due to naloxegol-related adverse events. From 76 patients subjects who had completed both 4 weeks of treatment and 28 days of the diary, 55 patients (72.4%, 95% CI 62.3-82.4%) were regarded as responders (i.e., showed ≥3 bowel-movements per week and an increase of ≥1 bowel-movement over baseline) to naloxegol treatment. The Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life Questionnaire total score and all its subscales improved from baseline to 4 weeks of follow up. Our findings support and provide new evidence about the beneficial effect of naloxegol in terms of improvement of constipation and quality-of-life in patients with cancer-related pain and opioid-induced constipation and show a safety profile consistent with previous pivotal and real-world studies.

Naldemedine is effective in the treatment of opioid-induced constipation in patients with chronic non-cancer pain who had a poor response to laxatives

BACKGROUND

Two studies demonstrated the efficacy and safety of naldemedine in adult patients with chronic non-cancer pain and opioid-induced constipation (OIC). However, no studies have compared the efficacy of peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists in patients with adequate and inadequate responses to prior OIC therapy with laxatives. This post hoc analysis of integrated data from the two previous studies compared the efficacy of naldemedine in patients who were unsuccessfully treated with laxatives [poor laxative responders (PLRs)] with those who either did not receive laxatives >30 days prior to screening or those who only received rescue laxative at or after screening (non-PLRs).

METHODS

Patients with OIC were randomized to once-daily treatment with naldemedine 0.2 mg or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of responders [⩾3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs)/week and an increase from baseline of ⩾1 SBM/week for ⩾9 weeks of the 12-week treatment period and ⩾3 weeks of the final 4 weeks of the 12-week treatment period]. Additional endpoints included change in SBM frequency, change in frequency of SBMs without straining, proportion of complete SBM (CSBM) responders, change in CSBM frequency, and time to first SBM. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed.

RESULTS

The analysis included 538 (317 PLRs, 221 non-PLRs) and 537 (311 PLRs, 226 non-PLRs) patients in the naldemedine and placebo arms, respectively. There were significantly more responders in the naldemedine PLR (46.4%; p < 0.0001) and non-PLR (54.3%; p = 0.0009) subgroups versus the placebo groups (30.2% and 38.9%, respectively). In both the PLR and non-PLR subgroups, naldemedine treatment was superior to placebo on all additional endpoints. Overall incidence of TEAEs in the PLR subgroups treated with naldemedine or placebo was similar.

CONCLUSION

This integrated analysis further supports the efficacy and tolerability of naldemedine in the treatment of OIC and demonstrates a consistent effect in both PLR and non-PLR subgroups.[ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01965158 and NCT01993940].

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.