Efficacy of pharmacological therapies for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation: systematic review and network meta-analysis

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.

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.

The safety and efficacy of methylnaltrexone in pediatric oncology patients: A single center experience

INTRODUCTION

Peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) are used in the treatment of opioid induced constipation without impacting the actions of opioid analgesics. Subcutaneous methylnaltrexone was one of the first PAMORAs approved in April 2008 for the treatment of opioid induced constipation in adult patients. The safety and effectiveness of methylnaltrexone has not been established in pediatric patients. In this study, the use of subcutaneous methylnaltrexone in pediatric patients is analyzed and reviewed. The primary outcome is occurrence of a bowel movement within 24 h after methylnaltrexone (MNTX) administration and the number of bowel movements following treatment with methylnaltrexone. Secondary outcomes include safety in this patient cohort.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 79 pediatric patients with opioid induced constipation. Patients were administered methylnaltrexone during their inpatient stay. Data on bowel activity after methylnaltrexone was obtained from the hospital information system.

RESULTS

Out of the 79 patients who received methylnaltrexone, there were seven patients from whom data could not be analyzed. Of the 72 patients whose data was available, 38% (N = 27) were documented as having a bowel movement, 62% (N = 45) did not have a bowel movement. Reported adverse events were minimal with nausea (N = 3), vomiting (N = 1), and flatulence (N = 6).

CONCLUSION

Methylnaltrexone appears safe in the pediatric population and produces bowel movements in more than a third of pediatric patients. It is a feasible and safe option for opioid induced constipation in pediatric patients.

Peripherally-active mu-opioid receptor antagonists for constipation in critically ill patients receiving opioids: A case-series and a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND

Constipation is frequent in critically ill patients, and potentially related to adverse outcomes. Peripherally-active mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) are approved for opioid-induced constipation, but information on their efficacy and safety in critically ill patients is limited. We present a single-center, retrospective, case-series of the use of naldemedine for opioid-associated constipation, and we systematically reviewed the use of PAMORAs in critically ill patients.

METHODS

Case-series included consecutive mechanically-ventilated patients; constipation was defined as absence of bowel movements for >3 days. Naldemedine was administered after failure of the local laxation protocol. Systematic review: PubMed was searched for studies of PAMORAs to treat opioid-induced constipation in adult critically ill patients.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

time to laxation, and number of patients laxating at the shortest follow-up.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

gastric residual volumes and adverse events.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 13 patients were included in the case-series; the most common diagnosis was COVID-19 ARDS. Patients had their first bowel movement 1 [0;2] day after naldemedine. Daily gastric residual volume was 725 [405;1805] before vs. 250 [45;1090] mL after naldemedine, p = 0.0078. Systematic review identified nine studies (two RCTs, one prospective case-series, three retrospective case-series and three case-reports). Outcomes were similar between groups, with a trend toward a lower gastric residual volume in PAMORAs group.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

In a highly-selected case-series of patients with refractory, opioid-associated constipation, naldemedine was safe and associated to reduced gastric residuals and promoting laxation. In the systematic review and meta-analysis, the use of PAMORAs (mainly methylnaltrexone) was safe and associated with a reduced intolerance to enteral feeding but no difference in the time to laxation.

Effect of acupressure on alleviating constipation among inpatients with stroke during the acute phase: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

This study aimed to explore the effects of acupressure in alleviating constipation among inpatients with stroke in neurological departments.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a two-arm, parallel, randomized, controlled trial conducted between September 2020 and August 2021. In total, 128 inpatients with stroke at the acute phase from neurological departments were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to either an acupressure group (ST25, CV12, and CV6) or a sham acupressure group for twice-daily therapy at 4 min per intervention for 7 days. The Bristol Stool Form Scale and Constipation Assessment Scale (CAS) were assessed at the beginning and completion of the study. A generalized estimating equation was used for data analyses.

RESULTS

The mean ages were 63.8 ± 19.1 and 66.2 ± 16.0 years, and the average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores were 7.2 ± 5.6 and 8.1 ± 6.3 points for the acupressure and sham acupressure groups, respectively. The acupressure group demonstrated gradually lower scores on the CAS over time than the sham acupressure group. Patients who received acupressure had a lower likelihood of requiring defecation medication and were more likely to have normal bowel movements and a decreased risk of their stool appearing as a hard lump than those who received sham acupressure over time.

CONCLUSION

Traditional Chinese medicine-based acupressure can help alleviate constipation and reduce the use of defecation medication among inpatients with stroke who have been admitted to neurological departments.

TRIAL AND PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05612646.

Effects of Electroacupuncture for Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients With Cancer in China: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is prevalent among patients treated with opioids for cancer pain. Safe and effective therapies for OIC in patients with cancer remain an unmet need.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of electroacupuncture (EA) for OIC in patients with cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted at 6 tertiary hospitals in China among 100 adult patients with cancer who were screened for OIC and enrolled between May 1, 2019, and December 11, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive 24 sessions of EA or sham electroacupuncture (SA) over 8 weeks and then were followed up for 8 weeks after treatment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion of overall responders, defined as patients who had at least 3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) per week and an increase of at least 1 SBM from baseline in the same week for at least 6 of the 8 weeks of the treatment period. All statistical analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.4 [10.5] years; 56 men [56.0%]) underwent randomization; 50 were randomly assigned to each group. Among them, 44 of 50 patients (88.0%) in the EA group and 42 of 50 patients (84.0%) in the SA group received at least 20 (≥83.3%) sessions of treatment. The proportion of overall responders at week 8 was 40.1% (95% CI, 26.1%-54.1%) in the EA group and 9.0% (95% CI, 0.5%-17.4%) in the SA group (difference between groups, 31.1 percentage points [95% CI, 14.8-47.6 percentage points]; P < .001). Compared with SA, EA provided greater relief for most OIC symptoms and improved quality of life among patients with OIC. Electroacupuncture had no effects on cancer pain and its opioid treatment dosage. Electroacupuncture-related adverse events were rare, and, if any, all were mild and transient.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This randomized clinical trial found that 8-week EA treatment could increase weekly SBMs with a good safety profile and improve quality of life for the treatment of OIC. Electroacupuncture thus provided an alternative option for OIC in adult patients with cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03797586.

Update on the role of naldemedine in opioid-induced constipation in patients with chronic noncancer pain

Chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) affects up to 20% of adults and can interfere with activities of daily living. Up to 4% of adults in the United States receive chronic opioid therapy and up to 57% of patients on long-term opioids for CNCP report opioid-induced constipation (OIC). OIC is essentially constipation occurring after starting opioid treatment. While laxatives are traditionally the first-line therapy for OIC, 81% of patients taking daily laxatives and opioids still reported OIC and considered that it negatively affected their quality of life. Naldemedine is a peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORA) approved for the treatment of OIC in patients with CNCP. This article reviews the mechanism of action, efficacy, and safety of naldemedine in CNCP patients. Naldemedine improves OIC in patients with CNCP by acting as an opioid receptor antagonist in the gastrointestinal tract. It does not interfere with the analgesic properties of opioids or cause withdrawal symptoms since these effects are centrally mediated, and naldemedine does not cross the blood brain barrier. Naldemedine showed significant and sustained improvement in frequency of bowel movements, quality of life, and constipation-related symptoms. It is generally well tolerated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events of mild or moderate severity such as diarrhea, abdominal pain, or vomiting compared to placebo. While there are no randomized, controlled trials that compare head-to-head pharmacological therapies used for treatment of OIC, network meta-analysis shows that naldemedine has an overall good benefit-risk profile compared to the other approved medications.

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.

Opioid-Related Constipation

Opioid-related constipation encompasses constipation directly caused by opioid use (opioid-induced constipation [OIC]) as well as pre-existing constipation worsened by opioid use (opioid-exacerbated constipation [OEC]). Over-the-counter laxatives should be used as first-line agents for both OIC and OEC, given their efficacy, low cost, and high safety profiles. Symptoms of OIC and responses to therapy can be assessed with the Bowel Function Index. Individuals with OIC refractory to laxatives may be responsive to peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists. Although data supporting the superiority of one prescription agent over another is lacking, all have proven effective for the treatment of OIC.

Naldemedine for opioid-induced constipation

Generic name: Naldemedine tosylate Brand name: Rizmoic Formulation: 200 mcg film-coated tablets Market Authorisation holder: Shionogi B.V Indication: Treatment of opioid-induced constipation in adult patients who have previously been treated with a laxative Dose: 200 mcg/day, taken at the same time every day. Naldemedine may be used with or without a laxative. It must be discontinued if treatment with the opioid is discontinued. Cost: £41.72 for 28 tablets Classification: Prescription only medicine subject to additional monitoring (▼).

Multicenter Observational/Exploratory Study Addressed to the Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Safety of Pharmacological Therapy in Opioid-Dependent Patients in Maintenance Therapy in Southern Italy

A multicenter-observational study was performed to assess the effectiveness of rac-methadone, levomethadone, and buprenorphine in opioid-dependent patients in polytherapy in Southern Italy. The primary endpoint was the reduction of urinary positivity to the substances and the maintaining doses. Patients (N = 266, age = 44.80 ± 5.65, male = 79.70%, female = 20.30%) have been recruited. At recruitment, 75% of them were on treatment with rac-methadone, levomethadone, and buprenorphine/naloxone. The patients were grouped into three clusters. The levomethadone patients of Cluster A (N patients = 211), after 180 days, showed stability in urinary methadone positivity, with a marked decrease in heroin −53 ± 4%, cannabinol’s −48 ± 2%, and cocaine −37 ± 6% positivity, with no differences between treatments. A lower QTcF value of 426 ± 8.4 ms was recorded in the levomethadone patients (delta = −19 ms) vs. rac-methadone, at significantly lower doses of levomethadone (−34%, −50.2% in males) (p < 0.05). The Cluster B data were collected from 37 patients, with a high prevalence of comorbidity infections (HIV/HCV/HPV), monitored for 21 months during COVID-19. High doses of levomethadone (58.33 ± 31.58 mg/day) were needed to stabilize those that were negative for opioids and cannabinoids, in contrast to the rac-methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone patients that showed positive toxicology. Eighteen patients of the Cluster C in double diagnosis (major depressive 38.90%, bipolar 27.78%, and schizophrenia 16.67%) were stabilized with high doses of racemate 97.5 ± 8 mg/day, 51.8 ± 5 mg/day of levomethadone (−46.8% vs. rac-methadone; −71% in men), and 2.5 ± 1 mg/day of buprenorphine/naloxone. Three patients in remission were treated with tapering doses of levomethadone. Significantly reduced QTcF values were recorded with levomethadone (delta −32 ms vs. rac-methadone) in the bipolar patients, as well as the schizophrenia patients in remission (delta −45.19 ms vs. rac-methadone). Our patients were safely stabilized. Levomethadone, compared to the racemate, contributes to reducing the illicit use, especially of opioids and cannabinoids at significantly lower doses with cardiovascular safety, which, in bipolar patients, is clinically significant.

Management of Opioid-Induced Constipation and Bowel Dysfunction: Expert Opinion of an Italian Multidisciplinary Panel

The prescribing and use of opioid analgesics is increasing in Italy owing to a profusion in the number and types of opioid analgesic products available, and the increasing prevalence of conditions associated with severe pain, the latter being related to population aging. Herein we provide the expert opinion of an Italian multidisciplinary panel on the management of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) and bowel dysfunction. OIC and opioid-induced bowel dysfunction are well-recognised unwanted effects of treatment with opioid analgesics that can profoundly affect quality of life. OIC can be due to additional factors such as reduced mobility, a low-fibre diet, comorbidities, and concomitant medications. Fixed-dose combinations of opioids with mu (μ) opioid receptor antagonists, such as oxycodone/naloxone, have become available, but have limited utility in clinical practice because the individual components cannot be independently titrated, creating a risk of breakthrough pain as the dose is increased. A comprehensive prevention and management strategy for OIC should include interventions that aim to improve fibre and fluid intake, increase mobility or exercise, and restore bowel function without compromising pain control. Recommended first-line pharmacological treatment of OIC is with an osmotic laxative (preferably polyethylene glycol [macrogol]), or a stimulant laxative such as an anthraquinone. A second laxative with a complementary mechanism of action should be added in the event of an inadequate response. Second-line treatment with a peripherally acting μ opioid receptor antagonist (PAMORA), such as methylnaltrexone, naloxegol or naldemedine, should be considered in patients with OIC that has not responded to combination laxative treatment. Prokinetics or intestinal secretagogues, such as lubiprostone, may be appropriate in the third-line setting, but their use in OIC is off-label in Italy, and should therefore be restricted to settings such as specialist centres and clinical trials.

Current Opinion on Prucalopride in Gastroparesis and Chronic Constipation Treatment: A Focus on Patient Selection and Safety

Prucalopride is a third-generation, highly selective 5-hydroxytryptamine 4 (5-HT4) receptor agonist. Many recent studies indicate prucalopride may play an important role in various motility disorders. The aim of this study was to investigate safety and patient selection considerations when using prucalopride as gastroparesis and chronic constipation treatment. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register and ClinicalTrials.gov, and we reviewed all studies that evaluated prucalopride for the treatment of gastroparesis and chronic idiopathic constipation in adults. Prucalopride is an effective and safe option based on all the studies currently conducted. Thus, it may be the first-line treatment in the future. Prucalopride has the potential to be useful in the treatment of functional constipation and other forms of gastrointestinal diseases (eg, gastroparesis). Through the research on this potential, prucalopride is expected to be a useful and versatile option for treating gastrointestinal diseases in the future.

Pharmacological characterization of naloxegol: In vitro and in vivo studies

Opioid-induced constipation is the most prevalent adverse effect of opioid drugs. Peripherally acting mu opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs), including naloxegol, are indicated for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation. The aim of this study was the in vitro and in vivo pharmacological characterization of naloxegol in comparison with naloxone. In vitro experiments were performed to measure calcium mobilization in cells coexpressing opioid receptors and chimeric G proteins and mu receptor interaction with G protein and β-arrestin 2 using bioluminescence resonance energy transfer. In vivo experiments were performed in mice to measure pain threshold using the tail withdrawal assay and colonic transit using the bead expulsion assay. In vitro, naloxegol behaved as a selective and competitive mu receptor antagonist similarly to naloxone, being 3-10-fold less potent. In vivo, naloxone was effective in blocking fentanyl actions when given subcutaneously (sc), but not per os (po). In contrast, naloxegol elicited very similar effects with sc or po administration counteracting in a dose dependent manner the constipating effects of fentanyl without interfering with the fentanyl mediated analgesia. Thus, a useful PAMORA action could be obtained with naloxegol both after po and sc administration.

Pediococcus acidilactici Strains Improve Constipation Symptoms and Regulate Intestinal Flora in Mice

Constipation is a prevalent gastrointestinal disorder that seriously reduces the quality of life. Clinical studies have shown that a great change or severe imbalance occurs in the intestinal microbiota of people with constipation. This study explored whether bacteriocin-producing and non-bacteriocin-producing Pediococcus acidilactici strains resulted in differences in the alleviation of constipation and changes in the fecal flora in BALB/c mice. The constipation-related indicators, gastrointestinal regulatory peptides and gut microbiota were identified to evaluate their alleviating effects and underlying mechanisms. The time to the first black-stool defecation and the gastrointestinal transit rate in constipated mice were found to be somewhat improved by four P. acidilactici strains (P > 0.05). Moreover, there were significant differences in the level of most gastrointestinal regulatory peptides in the serum, as well as in the composition and abundance of intestinal microbiota in different groups (P < 0.05). At the phylum level, the relative abundance of Firmicutes was significantly increased, but those of Bacteroidetes and Proteobacteria were significantly reduced after the administration of four P. acidilactici strains for 14 d (P < 0.05). The levels of Bacteroides and genera from Enterobacteriaceae were significantly decreased, whereas Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus were upregulated when bacteriocin-producing P. acidilactici CCFM18 and CCFM28 strains were provided in the diet (P < 0.05). The results indicated that although constipation-related symptoms were alleviated to only a limited degree, the administration of four P. acidilactici strains effectively regulated the gut flora and provided a potential health benefit to the host, especially the bacteriocin-producing P. acidilactici strains.

Insights into the Use of Peripherally Acting μ-Opioid Receptor Antagonists (PAMORAs) in Oncologic Patients: from Scientific Evidence to Real Clinical Practice

OPINION STATEMENT

Management of chronic pain is crucial to improve the quality of life of cancer and palliative care patients. Opioid-based treatments used to control pain can be prolonged over time. Unfortunately, constipation is one of the most disturbing adverse effects of long-term use of opioids. Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) occurs when opioids bind to the specific receptors present in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, and can affect any patients receiving chronic opioid therapy, including cancer patients. The limited efficacy of laxatives to treat OIC symptoms prompted the search for new therapeutic strategies. Peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) have recently emerged as new effective drugs for OIC management due to their specific binding to enteric μ-receptors. Little information is available on the use of PAMORAs in real-life practice for OIC treatment in cancer patients. In this paper, a panel of experts specializing in cancer and palliative care pools their clinical experience with PAMORAs in cancer patients presenting OIC and highlights the importance of timing and choice of therapy in achieving prompt OIC management and benefitting patients.

Effect of stellate ganglion block on postoperative recovery of gastrointestinal function in patients undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia: a meta-analysis

Background

The return of gastrointestinal function is an important sign of postoperative recovery in patients undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia. We aimed to summarize the effects of stellate ganglion block on the recovery of gastrointestinal function as a means of exploring methods through which anaesthesiologists can contribute to postoperative patient recovery.

Methods

We performed a quantitative systematic review of randomized controlled trials published between January 1, 1988, and November 11, 2019, in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese VIP Information, and the Wanfang and SinoMed databases. Study quality was assessed by using the GRADE criteria and bias of included studies were assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The time to peristaltic sound resumption, flatus, postoperative eating and the incidence of abdominal bloating in the stellate ganglion block and control groups were compared. The control group consisted of either a stellate ganglion block with normal saline or no treatment. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software.

Results

After searching for relevant articles, 281 studies were identified, and five articles with data on 274 patients were eligible. Regarding postoperative flatus time, stellate ganglion block resulted in a mean reduction of 15 h (P = 0.02); then a sensitivity analysis was performed, and the standard mean difference decreased to 6 h (P = 0.007). For gastrointestinal surgery, the mean reduction was 23.92 h (P = 0.0002). As for the evaluation of the recovery of peristaltic sounds, stellate ganglion block promoted the recovery of regular peristaltic bowel sounds an average of 14.67 h earlier than in the control (P = 0.0008). When it comes to nutrients, stellate ganglion block shortened the total parenteral nutrition time by more than 50 h in patients who had undergone gastrointestinal surgery (P<0.00001). Finally, stellate ganglion block prevented the occurrence of postoperative abdominal bloating (P = 0.001).) No complications related to stellate ganglion block were reported.

Conclusion

Stellate ganglion block may promote postoperative gastrointestinal recovery in patients undergoing various surgeries under general anaesthesia. However, additional trials investigating the use of stellate ganglion block are necessary to confirm our finding.

Trial registration

This meta-analysis has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration number CRD42020157602).

Evaluation and Treatment of Constipation in the Geriatric Population

Chronic constipation affects one-third of the US population and occurs disproportionately in the elderly and female individuals, increasing in older individuals who are institutionalized. This condition has a significant impact on health care costs and quality of life. Clinicians need to consider primary as well as secondary causes of constipation in elderly individuals because the cause is often multifactorial. Diagnostic algorithms should eliminate red-flag symptoms that may indicate a malignancy but also consider pelvic floor dysfunction, which is more common in this age group. An appropriate treatment plan is tailored to the severity of the patient's symptoms.

Efficacy and Safety of Peripherally Acting Mu-Opioid Receptor Antagonists for the Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation (OIC).

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched for OIC therapy comparing PAMORAs with placebo. Both a pairwise and network meta-analysis were performed. The surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) was used to determine the efficacy and safety of OIC treatment using different PAMORAs.

RESULTS

The primary target outcome was a response that achieves an average of three or more bowel movements (BMs) per week. In the network meta-analysis, four PAMORAs (naldemedine, naloxone, methylnaltrexone, and alvimopan) showed a better BM response than the placebo. Naldemedine was ranked first (odds ratio [OR] = 2.8, 95% credible interval [CrI] = 2-4.5, SUCRA = 89.42%), followed by naloxone (OR = 2.9, 95% CrI = 1.6-5.3, SUCRA = 87.44%), alvimopan (OR = 2.2, 95% CrI = 1.3-3.5, SUCRA = 68.02%), and methylnaltrexone (OR = 1.7, 95% CrI = 1.0-2.8, SUCRA = 46.09%). There were no significant differences in safety found between the PAMORAs and the placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that PAMORAs are effective and can be safely used for the treatment of OIC. In network meta-analysis, naldemedine and naloxone appear to be the most effective PAMORAs for the treatment of OIC.

Association between opioid usage and rectal dysfunction in constipation: A cross-sectional study of 2754 patients

BACKGROUND

Opioid use has reached epidemic proportions. In contrast to the known effect of opioids on gut transit, the effect on rectal sensorimotor function has not been comprehensively investigated.

METHODS

Cross-sectional (hypothesis-generating) study of anorectal physiology studies in 2754 adult patients referred to a tertiary unit (2004-2016) for investigation of functional constipation (defined by "derived" Rome IV core criteria). Statistical associations between opioid usage, symptoms, and anorectal physiological variables were investigated. Opioids were sub-classified as prescriptions for mild-moderate or moderate-severe pain.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 2354 patients (85.5%) were classified as non-opioid users, 162 (5.9%) as opioid users for mild-moderate pain, and 238 (8.6%) for moderate-severe pain. Opioids for moderate-severe pain were associated with increased symptomatic severity (Cleveland Clinic constipation score 18.5 vs 15.1; mean difference 2.9 [95%-CI 2.3-3.6]; P < .001), rectal hyposensitivity (odds ratio 1.74 [95%-CI 1.23-2.46]; P = .002), functional evacuation disorders (odds ratio 1.73 [95%-CI 1.28-2.34]; P < .001), and delayed whole-gut transit (odds ratio 1.68 [95%-CI 1.19-2.37]; P = .003). Differences in anorectal variables between opioid users for mild-moderate pain and non-opioid users were not statistically significant. Hierarchical opioid use (non vs mild-moderate vs moderate-severe) was associated with decreasing proportions of patients with no physiological abnormality on testing (40.2% vs 38.1% vs 29.2%) and increasing proportions with both delayed whole-gut transit and rectal sensorimotor dysfunction (16.6% vs 17.5% vs 28.5%).

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

Opioid use is over-represented in patients referred for investigation of constipation. Opioids for moderate-severe pain are associated with rectal sensorimotor abnormalities. Further studies are required to determine whether this association indicates causation.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: efficacy and safety of treatments for opioid-induced constipation

BACKGROUND

When opioid-induced constipation is treated with centrally acting opioid antagonists, there may be opioid withdrawal or aggravation of pain due to inhibition of μ-opioid analgesia. This led to the development of peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs).

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of available PAMORAs and other approved or experimental treatments for relieving constipation in patients with opioid-induced constipation, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and EBM Reviews Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was completed in July 2019 for randomised trials compared to placebo. FDA approved doses or highest studied dose was evaluated. Efficacy was based on diverse endpoints, including continuous variables (the bowel function index, number of spontaneous bowel movements and stool consistency based on Bristol Stool Form Scale), or responder analysis (combination of >3 spontaneous bowel movements or complete spontaneous bowel movements plus 1 spontaneous bowel movement or complete spontaneous bowel movements, respectively, over baseline [so-called FDA endpoints]). Adverse effects evaluated included central opioid withdrawal, serious adverse events, abdominal pain and diarrhoea.

RESULTS

We included 35 trials at low risk of bias enrolling 13 566 patients. All PAMORAs demonstrated efficacy on diverse patient response endpoints. There was greater efficacy with approved doses of the PAMORAs (methylnaltrexone, naloxegol and naldemidine), with lower efficacy or lower efficacy and greater adverse effects with combination oxycodone with naloxone, lubiprostone and linaclotide.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic response in opioid-induced constipation is best achieved with the PAMORAs, methylnaltrexone, naloxegol and naldemidine, which are associated with low risk of serious adverse events.

Naldemedine for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation in adults with chronic noncancer pain

This review aims to summarize the efficacy data for naldemedine, a member of the novel peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs), which gained US FDA approval for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation in adults with chronic noncancer pain-related syndromes in 2017. In Phase III trials, patients receiving naldemedine were significantly more likely to meet the primary end point ≥3 spontaneous bowel movements/week and an increase of ≥1 spontaneous bowel movement/week from baseline for at least 9/12 weeks compared to placebo (p < 0.0001). The most frequent adverse events were abdominal pain (8%) and diarrhea (7%). Based on available data, naldemedine appears to be an effective and safe first-line therapy for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation in adults with chronic noncancer pain.

Naldemedine: A New Option for OIBD

Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is a common complication in long-term opioid users and abusers. It is a burdensome condition, which significantly limits quality of life and is associated with increasing health costs. OIBD affects up to 60% of patients with chronic non-cancer pain and over 80% of patients suffering from cancer pain and is one of the conditions of the most common symptoms associated with opioid maintenance. Given the continued use of opioids for chronic pain management in appropriate patients, OIBD is likely to persist in clinical practice in the coming years. We will herein review its underlying pathophysiological mechanisms and the available treatments. In the last years, pharmaceutical research has focused on the opportunity of targeting peripheral mu-opioid receptors without affecting their analgesic activity in the central nervous system, and several peripherally acting mu-opioid receptors antagonists (PAMORAs) drugs have been approved. We will mainly focus on naldemedine, discussing its pharmacological properties, its clinical efficacy and side effects. Head-to-head comparisons between naldemedine and the other PAMORAs are not available yet, but some considerations will be discussed based on the pharmacological and clinical data. As a whole, the available data suggest that naldemedine is a valid treatment option for OIBD, as it is a well-tolerated drug that alleviates constipation without affecting analgesia or causing symptoms of opioid withdrawal.

Effectiveness of different acupuncture courses for functional constipation: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study will evaluate the effectiveness of different acupuncture courses for functional constipation (FC) through network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Eight database (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) and Wanfang Database) will be searched from inception to October 2019. Only randomized controlled trials comparing different acupuncture courses or acupuncture versus sham acupuncture or placebo will be included. The outcomes involved weekly stool frequency, Bristol Fecal score, responder rate and safety evaluation. The risk of bias assessment and quality of evidence will be appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. RevMan 5.3 software, STATA V.14.0 and GeMTC software will be used to perform the network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

This work will compare and arrange the comparative efficacy of different acupuncture treatments for FC by summarizing the current evidences. The results will be submitted in the form of a journal publication.

CONCLUSION

The results of this network meta-analysis may help doctors determine the best treatments for patients to manage FC.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020153801.

Effectiveness of management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Embase Classic, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to September 2019, with no language restrictions. Conference proceedings between 2001 and 2019.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia in adult participants (age ≥18 years). Strategies of interest were prompt endoscopy; test for Helicobacter pylori and perform endoscopy in participants who test positive; test for H pylori and eradication treatment in those who test positive ("test and treat"); empirical acid suppression; or symptom based management. Trials reported dichotomous assessment of symptom status at final follow-up (≥12 months).

RESULTS

The review identified 15 eligible randomised controlled trials that comprised 6162 adult participants. Data were pooled using a random effects model. Strategies were ranked according to P score, which is the mean extent of certainty that one management strategy is better than another, averaged over all competing strategies. "Test and treat" ranked first (relative risk of remaining symptomatic 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.02, P score 0.79) and prompt endoscopy ranked second, but performed similarly (0.90, 0.80 to 1.02, P score 0.71). However, no strategy was significantly less effective than "test and treat." Participants assigned to "test and treat" were significantly less likely to receive endoscopy (relative risk v prompt endoscopy 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.31, P score 0.98) than all other strategies, except symptom based management (relative risk v symptom based management 0.60, 0.30 to 1.18). Dissatisfaction with management was significantly lower with prompt endoscopy (P score 0.95) than with "test and treat" (relative risk v "test and treat" 0.67, 0.46 to 0.98), and empirical acid suppression (relative risk v empirical acid suppression 0.58, 0.37 to 0.91). Upper gastrointestinal cancer rates were low in all trials. Results remained stable in sensitivity analyses, with minimal inconsistencies between direct and indirect results. Risk of bias of individual trials was high; blinding was not possible because of the pragmatic trial design.

CONCLUSIONS

"Test and treat" was ranked first, although it performed similarly to prompt endoscopy and was not superior to any of the other strategies. "Test and treat" led to fewer endoscopies than all other approaches, except symptom based management. However, participants showed a preference for prompt endoscopy as a management strategy for their symptoms.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42019132528.

Naldemedine: A Review in Opioid-Induced Constipation

Naldemedine [Symproic^® (Japan; USA); Rizmoic^® (EU)], an orally available peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonist (PAMORA), is approved in several countries for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation. In phase III trials, naldemedine was more effective than placebo at increasing the frequency of bowel movements in patients with constipation induced by opioid treatment for cancer pain or chronic non-cancer pain. Naldemedine was also associated with improvements in patient-rated constipation-related symptoms and quality of life. Naldemedine was generally well tolerated, including over the longer term. Because naldemedine specifically targets opioid receptors in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and does not cross the blood-brain barrier, it does not cause opioid withdrawal symptoms or interfere with centrally mediated opioid analgesia. Consistent with its mechanism of action, the most commonly reported adverse events were GI in nature. In conclusion, current data indicate that naldemedine is an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment option for opioid-induced constipation in patients with cancer pain or chronic non-cancer pain, with the convenience of once-daily oral dosing.

Safety and efficacy of naldemedine in cancer patients with opioid-induced constipation: a pooled, subgroup analysis of two randomised controlled studies

Objective

This post hoc, pooled, subgroup analysis of two randomised studies evaluated baseline characteristics that may influence the efficacy and safety of naldemedine in patients with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) and cancer.

Methods

Data for patients who received 0.2 mg naldemedine or placebo were pooled from randomised, placebo-controlled, phase IIb and phase III studies. Proportions of spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) responders and patients with diarrhoea were assessed for each treatment group. For the patient subgroups with or without possible blood–brain barrier (BBB) disruptions, changes in Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and Clinical Opioid Withdrawal Scale (COWS) scores were assessed.

Results

A total of 307 patients were included in this analysis (naldemedine: n=155; placebo: n=152). The pooled proportion of SBM responders was 73.5% with naldemedine versus 35.5% with placebo. There was a significant increase in the proportion of SBM responders with naldemedine versus placebo (38.0% (95% CI 27.6% to 48.4%); p<0.0001). Greater proportions of SBM responders and patients who experienced diarrhoea were observed with naldemedine versus placebo in all subgroups. Changes from baseline in NRS and COWS scores were similar with naldemedine or placebo in patients with or without brain metastases.

Conclusions

Although not powered to detect statistically significant differences in treatment effect among subgroups, this study demonstrated that naldemedine appeared to benefit patients with OIC and cancer, irrespective of baseline characteristics, and did not seem to affect analgesia or withdrawal–even in patients with potential BBB disruptions. Baseline characteristics did not appear to affect the incidence of diarrhoea in patients who received naldemedine.

Trial registration numbers

JapicCTI-111510 and JapicCTI-132340.