Management of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients: systematic review and evidence-based recommendations

Nomogram for predicting opioid-induced nausea and vomiting for cancer pain patients

OBJECTIVE

Opioid-induced nausea and vomiting are frequently observed as an adverse effect in the treatment of cancer-related pain. The factors that affect OINV in cancer patients remain unclear. In this study, we developed a nomogram for predicting the occurrence of OINV in this population using retrospective clinical data.

METHODS

We collected data from 416 cancer pain patients, 70% of whom used the training set to analyze demographic and clinical variables. We used multivariate logistic regression to identify significant factors associated with OINV. Then, we construct a prediction nomogram. The validation set comprises the remaining 30%. The reliability of the nomogram is evaluated by bootstrap resampling.

RESULTS

Using multivariate logistic regression, we identified five significant factors associated with OINV. The C-index was 0.835 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.828-0.842) for the training set and 0.810 (95% CI, 0.793-0.826) for the validation set. The calibrated curves show a good agreement between the predicted and actual occurrence of OINV.

CONCLUSION

In a retrospective study based on five saliency-found variables, we developed and proved a reliable nomogram model to predict OINV in cancer pain patients. Future prospective studies should assess the model's reliability and usefulness in clinical practice.

Cancer cachexia as a blueprint for treating obesity

Effective pharmacological treatments to achieve significant and sustained weight loss in obese individuals remain limited. Here, we apply a 'reverse engineering' approach to cancer cachexia, an extreme form of dysregulated energy balance resulting in net catabolism. We discuss three phenotypic features of the disease, summarize the underlying molecular checkpoints, and explore their translation to obesity research. We then provide examples for established pharmaceuticals, which follow a reverse engineering logic, and propose additional targets that may be of relevance for future studies. Finally, we argue that approaching diseases from this perspective may prove useful as a generic strategy to fuel the development of innovative therapies.

A Retrospective Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Naldemedine for Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients with Hepatobiliary Pancreatic Cancer

Background and Objectives: Opioid analgesics, which are used for cancer-related pain management, cause opioid-induced constipation (OIC). Naldemedine, a peripheral opioid receptor antagonist, is an OIC-modifying agent, but no focused efficacy and safety analysis has been conducted for its use in hepatobiliary pancreatic cancers. We performed a multi-institutional study on the efficacy and safety of naldemedine in patients with hepatobiliary pancreatic cancer using opioids in clinical practice. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients with hepatobiliary pancreatic cancer (including liver, biliary tract, and pancreatic cancers) treated with opioids and naldemedine during hospitalization at ten institutions in Japan from June 2017 to August 2019. We assessed the frequency of bowel movements before and after the initiation of naldemedine therapy. Responders were defined as patients who defecated ≥3 times/week, with an increase from a baseline of ≥1 defecations/week over seven days after the initiation of naldemedine administration. Results: Thirty-four patients were observed for one week before and one week after starting naldemedine. The frequency of bowel movements increased by one over the baseline frequency or to at least thrice per week in 21 patients. The response rate was 61.7% (95% confidence interval: 45.4–78.0%). The median number of weekly bowel movements before and after naldemedine treatment was 2 (range: 0–9) and 6 (range: 1–17), respectively, in the overall population (n = 34); the increase in the number of bowel movements following naldemedine administration was statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p < 0.0001). Diarrhea was the predominant gastrointestinal symptom, and 10 (29.4%) patients experienced grade 1, grade 2, or grade 3 adverse events. The only other adverse event included fatigue in one patient; grade 2–4 adverse events were absent. Conclusions: Naldemedine is effective, and its use may be safe in clinical practice for patients with hepatobiliary pancreatic cancer receiving opioid analgesics.

An update on the use of pharmacotherapy for opioid-induced bowel dysfunction

INTRODUCTION

With the growing rate of aging and the incidence of chronic diseases, there has been an upsurge in opioid prescription and abuse worldwide. This has been associated with increased reports of opioid-related adverse events, particularly opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD), calling for a rational clinical management strategy.

AREAS COVERED

Through searching PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, English literature was gathered as of 1 January 2017. Furthermore, the USFDA, EMA, TGA, Clinicaltrials.Gov, WHO-ICTRP databases, and the latest guidelines were reviewed to extract ongoing clinical studies and provide an evidence-based expert opinion with detailed information on efficacy, safety, approval status, and pharmacokinetics of the currently used medications.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the significant burden of OIBD, the clinical development of agents lags behind disease progress. Although in most places, management of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is initiated by lifestyle modifications followed by laxatives, opioid antagonists, and secretagogue agents, there are still major conflicts among global guidelines. The fundamental reason is the lack of head-to-head clinical trials providing inter- and intragroup comparisons between PAMORAs, laxatives, and secretagogue agents. These investigations must be accompanied by further valid biopharmaceutical and economic evaluations, paving the way for rational clinical judgment in each context.

Pain and Nausea Intensity, Social Function, and Psychological Well-Being among Women with Metastatic Breast Cancer

Advances in diagnostics and therapeutics have improved prognosis for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Yet, treatment and disease burden-including experiences of pain and nausea-present practical and emotional challenges. To better support patients and enhance quality of life, deeper understanding of the pathways linking physical and psychological health is needed. To this end, we examined associations of pain and nausea with depression and anxiety among women with MBC. In doing so, we highlighted social function as a potentially important mechanism in this relationship. This observational, cross-sectional study included 148 predominantly non-Hispanic White, highly educated women living with MBC. Multivariate regression models demonstrated that more intense pain and nausea were significantly associated with higher levels of depression and anxiety (p < .001). Causal mediation analyses confirmed significant indirect effects whereby decreases in social function associated with pain and nausea contributed to depression and anxiety. Thus, our findings illustrate decreased social function as one pathway through which pain and nausea contribute to escalation of depression and anxiety. Our results, therefore, underscore the importance of supporting social function among women with MBC to potentially reduce psychological sequelae of pain and nausea.

A retrospective study of the efficacy and safety of naldemedine for opioid-induced constipation in thoracic cancer patients

Background

We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study on the efficacy and safety of naldemedine in thoracic cancer patients using opioids in clinical practice.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated thoracic cancer patients treated with naldemedine at 10 institutions in Japan. Clinical data of patients administered naldemedine between June 2017 and August 2019 were extracted from electronic medical records. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) patients hospitalized for at least seven days before and after naldemedine administration, and (ii) those whose frequency of defecation was entered in the medical records.

Results

Forty patients were analyzed, and defecation frequency was observed for at least seven days before and after naldemedine administration. The response rate was 65.0% (95% CI: 50.2%–79.7%). The number of defecations increased significantly after naldemedine administration in the overall population, as well as among only those who defecated <3 times/week before naldemedine administration, and those that were administered ≥30 mg/day of morphine equivalent. Diarrhea was the most common adverse event in all grades, occurring in 11 patients (27.5%), of which 9 (81.8%) were grade 1 or 2. None of the patients experienced grade 4 or higher adverse events.

Conclusion

The efficacy and safety of naldemedine for thoracic cancer patients in clinical practice were comparable with those of prospective studies, which suggest that naldemedine may be effective and feasible for most thoracic cancer patients.

Effect of Prophylactic Anti-emetics on Opioid-induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The guidelines on pharmacotherapy for cancer-related pain advocate active measures against the adverse effects of opioids to increase adherence to medication. However, preventative therapy for the management of nausea and vomiting has not been specified. This study aimed to verify the effects of prophylactic anti-emetics in preventing opioid-induced nausea and vomiting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of cases at our hospital in which oral opioids or patches were initiated for the management of pain due to malignant tumours from January 2017 to September 2019.

RESULTS

Strong opioids were initiated for 349 patients; of these, data for 298 patients were analysed. A total of 193 patients were on anti-emetic prophylaxis. We found that the group that did not receive anti-emetic prophylaxis was significantly more likely to be prescribed an additional anti-emetic.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic administration of anti-emetics at the time of initiating opioid analgesics may reduce gastrointestinal toxicity.

The Management of Nausea and Vomiting Not Related to Anticancer Therapy in Patients with Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

In cancer patients, the management of nausea and vomiting that is not directly related to treatment is challenging. Much current practice is based on expert opinion and anecdote. Fortunately, over recent years, a number of quality trials have been undertaken to strengthen the evidence base that guides the care of our patients with these distressing symptoms. Much is still unknown however. In this article, we present the latest literature that addresses some of the outstanding issues.

Predictive Factors of Opioid-Induced Nausea in Cancer Patients

Approximately 30% of patients experience nausea after initiation of opioid therapy, which can lead to poor quality of life. We aimed to identify risk factors for opioid-induced nausea at the initiation of opioid therapy by conducting a retrospective review of medical records of patients diagnosed by palliative care specialists with solid cancer and pain at the lesion site at Showa University Hospital between June 2005 and June 2011. The primary endpoint was the development of nausea grade ≥1 according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 within 48 hours of initiation of opioid therapy. The median age of the 134 enrolled patients was 67.7 (range 28-95) years. Fifty-three percent were male and 44% had gastrointestinal cancer. Furthermore, 22.4% had opioid-induced nausea. Age (odds ratio (OR) 1.74; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13-2.69), edema (OR 5.83; 95% CI, 1.22-28.19), and gastrointestinal cancer (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.07-6.36) were significantly associated with opioid-induced nausea. Prophylactic antiemetics were found to be ineffective.

The Palliative Care of Patients With Incurable Cancer

BACKGROUND

The purpose of palliative medicine is to optimize the quality of life of patients with incurable, progressive diseases. The care delivered in actual clinical practice is not uniform and often takes insufficient account of the currently available scientific evidence.

METHODS

In accordance with the methodological directives on systematic literature reviews and consensus-finding that have been issued by the German Oncology Guideline Program (Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie), a nationwide, representative group of experts updated the previously published seven chapters of the S3 (evidence-based and consensus-based) guideline and formulated new recommen- dations on a further eight topics in palliative care.

RESULTS

Non-drug options for the treatment of fatigue include aerobic exercise and psycho-educative methods, particularly cognitive behavioral therapy. Sleep distur- bances can be treated with improved sleep hygiene and relaxation techniques, as well as with drugs: Z substances for short-term and sedating antidepressants for intermediate-term treatment. For nausea and vomiting, the first line of treatment consists of antidopaminergic drugs, such as haloperidol, or drugs with an antido- paminergic effect combined with a further receptor affinity, such as metoclopramide. For patients suffering from malignant intestinal obstruction (MIO), an important con- sideration for further treatment is whether the obstruction is complete or incomplete. Psychotherapeutic interventions are indicated for the treatment of anxiety.

CONCLUSION

Multiple studies have confirmed the benefit of the early integration of palliative care for achieving the goals of better symptom control and maintenance of derate quality of evidence supporting the management of certain symptoms in patients with incurable cancers.

Prevention and management of diarrhea associated with naldemedine among patients receiving opioids: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Naldemedine, a novel peripherally-acting mu-opioid receptor antagonist, has improved opioid-induced constipation in randomized controlled trials. The most frequent adverse event of naldemedine is diarrhea, which can cause abdominal pain and often leads to treatment discontinuation. We aimed to identify risk factors and appropriate management strategies for key adverse events including diarrhea associated with naldemedine, since those have not been extensively studied.

METHODS

We conducted a multi-center retrospective cohort study. Eligible patients had cancer, had undergone palliative care at participating centers, had been prescribed regular opioids, and had taken at least one dose of naldemedine between June 2017 and March 2018. The primary endpoint was the incidence of diarrhea according to baseline characteristics. Secondary endpoints included the duration of naldemedine administration, daily defecation counts before and after starting naldemedine, duration and severity of diarrhea as an adverse event of naldemedine, other adverse events, and the incidence of constipation within 7 days after recovery from diarrhea. We defined patients who started naldemedine within three days of starting a regularly prescribed opioid as the early group, and the remainder as the late group.

RESULTS

Among 103 patients who received naldemedine, 98 fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The median age was 68 years and 48% of the patients were female. Median performance status was 3, and the median oral intake was 50%. The median duration of naldemedine administration and overall survival were 25 and 64 days, respectively. The incidence of diarrhea in the early group (n = 26) was significantly lower than in the late group (n = 72) (3.9% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.02). Daily defecation counts increased after late (median 0.43 to 0.88, p < 0.001), but remained stable after early naldemedine administration (median 1.00 to 1.00, p = 0.34). Constipation after the diarrhea was resolved was common (53%), especially among patients who stopped naldemedine (78%). The diarrhea was improved within three days in 92% of patients who stopped other laxatives.

CONCLUSIONS

The early administration of naldemedine is beneficial because it reduces adverse events including diarrhea. Diarrhea caused by naldemedine can be effectively managed by stopping other laxatives while continuing naldemedine.

Balancing opioid analgesia with the risk of nonmedical opioid use in patients with cancer

The current opioid crisis has brought renewed attention and scrutiny to opioid prescriptions. When patients receiving opioid therapy for pain engage in nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) or diversion, untoward consequences can occur. New evidence suggests that patients with cancer might be at a higher risk of NMOU than was previously thought, but clinical evidence still supports the use of opioid analgesics as the gold standard to treat cancer-related pain, creating a dilemma in patient management. Clinicians are encouraged to adopt a universal precautions approach to patients with cancer receiving opioids, which includes screening all patients; discussing the risks, benefits, adverse effects and alternatives of opioid therapy; and providing education on safe use, storage and disposal. Use of urine drug tests, prescription drug monitoring programmes and close observation of behaviours related to opioid use help to ensure treatment adherence, detect NMOU and support therapeutic decision-making. These measures can optimize the risk-benefit ratio while supporting safe opioid use. In this Review, we examine the role of opioids in cancer pain, the risk of substance use disorder and methods to achieve the right balance between the two in order to ensure safe opioid use.

Prophylactic use of antiemetics for prevention of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting: a survey about Italian physicians' practice

PURPOSE

Antiemetics are being used both for the treatment and prophylaxis of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) in clinical practice, despite the lack of evidence for the prophylactic benefit. Studies among Japanese physicians demonstrated over 80% prescribe antiemetics, with neuroleptic antipsychotics as the most commonly prescribed drugs. Our objective was to elucidate the current scenario of the prophylactic use of antiemetics for OINV among Italian physicians.

METHODS

We conducted a web-based cross-sectional national survey. All the invited participants received an e-mail with an 11-item electronic questionnaire accessible through a direct link. Anonymity was guaranteed. According to the exploratory intent of the survey, we did not predefine any formal statistical hypothesis. Associations between variables were tested by the Pearson chi-square or the Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

From January to March 2017, 112 completed the electronic questionnaire (112/256, overall response rate, 43.7%). Nearly half of the participants were oncologists (54; 48.2%). Sixty-one (54.4%) physicians worked in palliative care units. About 45% of the interviewed prescribed prophylactic antiemetics at the beginning of opioid prescription. The most commonly chosen drugs for this purpose were prokinetics such as metoclopramide and domperidone (84%), followed by 5-HT3 antagonists (8%), neuroleptic antipsychotics (6%), and corticosteroids (2%). Ninety-one physicians (81%) declared to prescribe antiemetics at the occurrence of OINV, mainly prokinetics (N = 70; 77%).

CONCLUSION

Italian physicians do not commonly prescribe prophylactic antiemetics for OINV. Unlike previously reported data, dopamine antagonists resulted the most commonly prescribed drugs. Prospective clinical trials are necessary to evaluate the real efficacy of this practice.

Use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Cancer: Practical Considerations for the Management of Patients with Nausea or Vomiting

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have proven efficacy and safety and are approved for use in the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic events in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and those with atrial fibrillation (AF). There is no clear guidance on the use of DOACs in the significant proportion of these patients who have or will develop concomitant cancer. The occurrence of nausea and vomiting in these patients, despite implementation of guideline-recommended antiemetic strategies, is a particular concern because it may affect oral drug intake and consequently outcomes with anticoagulation therapy.Here, we review recent data on the incidence and management of cancer-associated nausea and vomiting and the current evidence and guidance relating to the use of DOACs in patients with cancer. On the basis of this evidence, an international working group of experts in the fields of cancer-associated thrombosis/hemostasis, hematology, and oncology discussed key issues related to the use of DOACs in patients with VTE or AF and cancer who are at risk of nausea and vomiting and developed some consensus recommendations. We present these consensus recommendations, which outline strategies for the use and management of anticoagulants, including DOACs, in patients with VTE or AF and cancer for whom oral drug intake may pose challenges. Guidance is provided on managing patients with gastrointestinal obstruction or nausea and vomiting that is caused by cancer treatments or other cancer-related factors.The recommendations outlined in this review provide a useful reference for health care professionals and will help to improve the management of anticoagulation in patients with VTE or AF and cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) offer several advantages over traditional anticoagulants, including ease of administration and the lack of need for routine monitoring. However, the management of patients with an indication for anticoagulation and concomitant cancer, who are at high risk of thromboembolic events, presents several challenges for administering oral therapies, particularly with regard to the risk of nausea and vomiting. In the absence of robust data from randomized trials and specific guidelines, consensus recommendations were developed for healthcare professionals regarding the use of DOACs in patients with cancer, with a focus on the management of patients who are at risk of nausea and vomiting.

Management of Malignant Bowel Obstruction Associated With GI Cancers

For many patients with GI malignancies, the seeding of the abdominal cavity with tumor cells, called peritoneal carcinomatosis, is a common mode of metastases and disease progression. Prognosis for patients with this aspect of their disease remains poor, with high disease-related morbidity and complications. Uniform and proven practices that provide optimal palliative care and quality of life for these patients are needed. The objective of this review is to critically assess the current literature regarding palliative strategies in the management of peritoneal carcinomatosis and associated symptoms in patients with advanced GI cancers. Despite encouraging results in the select population where cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy are indicated, the majority of patients who develop peritoneal carcinomatosis in the setting of GI cancers have poor prognosis, with malignant bowel obstruction representing a common terminal phase of their disease process. For all patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis, aggressive symptom control and early multimodality palliative care as further outlined should be sought.

European Pain Federation position paper on appropriate opioid use in chronic pain management

Poorly controlled pain is a global public health issue. The personal, familial and societal costs are immeasurable. Only a minority of European patients have access to a comprehensive specialist pain clinic. More commonly the responsibility for chronic pain management and initiating opioid therapy rests with the primary care physician and other non‐specialist opioid prescribers. There is much confusing and conflicting information available to non‐specialist prescribers regarding opioid therapy and a great deal of unjustified fear is generated. Opioid therapy should only be initiated by competent clinicians as part of a multi‐faceted treatment programme in circumstances where more simple measures have failed. Throughout, all patients must be kept under close clinical surveillance. As with any other medical therapy, if the treatment fails to yield the desired results and/or the patient is additionally burdened by an unacceptable level of adverse effects, the overall management strategy must be reviewed and revised. No responsible clinician will wish to pursue a failed treatment strategy or persist with an ineffective and burdensome treatment. In a considered attempt to empower and inform non‐specialist opioid prescribers, EFIC convened a European group of experts, drawn from a diverse range of basic science and relevant clinical disciplines, to prepare a position paper on appropriate opioid use in chronic pain. The expert panel reviewed the available literature and harnessed the experience of many years of clinical practice to produce these series of recommendations. Its success will be judged on the extent to which it contributes to an improved pain management experience for chronic pain patients across Europe.

Significance

This position paper provides expert recommendations for primary care physicians and other non‐ specialist healthcare professionals in Europe, particularly those who do not have ready access to specialists in pain medicine, on the safe and appropriate use of opioid medications as part of a multi‐faceted approach to pain management, in properly selected and supervised patients.

Efficacy of Prophylactic Treatment for Oxycodone-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Among Patients with Cancer Pain (POINT): A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Trial

BACKGROUND

Although opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) often result in analgesic undertreatment in patients with cancer, no randomized controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of prophylactic antiemetics for preventing OINV. We conducted this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic treatment with prochlorperazine for preventing OINV.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cancer patients who started to receive oral oxycodone were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either prochlorperazine 5 mg or placebo prophylactically, given three times daily for 5 days. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had a complete response (CR) during the 120 hours of oxycodone treatment. CR was defined as no emetic episode and no use of rescue medication for nausea and vomiting during 5 days. Key secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with emetic episodes, proportion of patients with moderate or severe nausea, quality of life, and proportion of treatment withdrawal.

RESULTS

From November 2013 through February 2016, a total of 120 patients were assigned to receive prochlorperazine (n = 60) or placebo (n = 60). There was no significant difference in CR rates (69.5% vs. 63.3%; p = .47) or any secondary endpoint between the groups. Patients who received prochlorperazine were more likely to experience severe somnolence (p = .048).

CONCLUSION

Routine use of prochlorperazine as a prophylactic antiemetic at the initiation of treatment with opioids is not recommended. Further research is needed to evaluate whether other antiemetics would be effective in preventing OINV in specific patient populations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Prophylactic prochlorperazine seems to be ineffective in preventing opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) and may cause adverse events such as somnolence. Routine use of prophylactic prochlorperazine at the initiation of treatment with opioids is not recommended. Further research is needed to evaluate whether other antiemetics would be effective in preventing OINV in specific patient populations.

Clinically significant drug-drug interactions involving opioid analgesics used for pain treatment in patients with cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Opioids are the most frequently used drugs to treat pain in cancer patients. In some patients, however, opioids can cause adverse effects and drug-drug interactions. No advice concerning the combination of opioids and other drugs is given in the current European guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To identify studies that report clinically significant drug-drug interactions involving opioids used for pain treatment in adult cancer patients.

DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES

Systematic review with searches in Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the start of the databases (Embase from 1980) through January 2014. In addition, reference lists of relevant full-text papers were hand-searched.

RESULTS

Of 901 retrieved papers, 112 were considered as potentially eligible. After full-text reading, 17 were included in the final analysis, together with 15 papers identified through hand-searching of reference lists. All of the 32 included publications were case reports or case series. Clinical manifestations of drug-drug interactions involving opioids were grouped as follows: 1) sedation and respiratory depression, 2) other central nervous system symptoms, 3) impairment of pain control and/or opioid withdrawal, and 4) other symptoms. The most common mechanisms eliciting drug-drug interactions were alteration of opioid metabolism by inhibiting the activity of cytochrome P450 3A4 and pharmacodynamic interactions due to the combined effect on opioid, dopaminergic, cholinergic, and serotonergic activity in the central nervous system.

CONCLUSION

Evidence for drug-drug interactions associated with opioids used for pain treatment in cancer patients is very limited. Still, the cases identified in this systematic review give some important suggestions for clinical practice. Physicians prescribing opioids should recognize the risk of drug-drug interactions and if possible avoid polypharmacy.

Polypharmacy in patients with advanced cancer and pain: a European cross-sectional study of 2282 patients

CONTEXT

Patients with advanced cancer need multiple drugs to control symptoms and to treat cancer and concomitant diseases. At the same time, the goal of treatment changes as life expectancy becomes limited. This results in a risk for polypharmacy, maintained use of unneeded drugs, and drug-drug interactions (DDIs).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to analyze the use of medications and to identify unneeded drugs, and drugs and drug combinations with a risk for DDIs in a cohort of advanced cancer pain patients, defined by a need for a World Health Organization analgesic ladder Step III opioid.

METHODS

All drugs taken within a study day by cancer patients receiving opioids for moderate or severe pain (Step III opioids) were analyzed. Nonopioids and adjuvants were analyzed for their use across countries. Unneeded medications and drugs and drug combinations with a risk for pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic DDIs were identified on the basis of published literature and electronic resources.

RESULTS

In total, 2282 patients from 17 centers in 11 European countries were included. They received a mean of 7.8 drugs (range 1-20). Over one-quarter used 10 or more medications. The drugs and drug classes most frequently coadministered with opioids were proton pump inhibitors, laxatives, corticosteroids, paracetamol (acetaminophen), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, metoclopramide, benzodiazepines, anticoagulants, antibiotics, anticonvulsants, diuretics, and antidepressants. The use of nonopioids and essential adjuvants varied across countries. Approximately 45% of patients received unnecessary or potentially unnecessary drugs, and about 7% were given duplicate or antagonizing agents. Exposures to DDIs were frequent and increased the risk of sedation, gastric ulcerations, bleedings, and neuropsychiatric and cardiac complications. Many patients were exposed to pharmacokinetic DDIs involving cytochrome P450, including about 58% who used a Step III opioid CYP3A4 (izoenzyme of cytochrome P450) substrate, and more than 10% who were given major CYP3A4 inhibitors or inducers.

CONCLUSION

Patients with cancer treated with a World Health Organization Step III opioid use a high number of drugs. Nonopioid analgesics and corticosteroids are frequently used, but different patterns of use between countries were found. Many patients receive unneeded drugs and are at risk of serious DDIs. These findings demonstrate that drug therapy in these patients needs to be evaluated continuously.

Predictive factors for nausea or vomiting in patients with cancer who receive oral oxycodone for the first time: is prophylactic medication for prevention of opioid-induced nausea or vomiting necessary?

OBJECTIVES

To identify predictive factors for nausea or vomiting in patients with cancer who receive oral opioid analgesics for the first time.

METHODS

The participants were 280 hospitalized patients with cancer who were given oral opioid analgesics for relief of cancer pain for the first time at our hospital between January 2008 and December 2011. According to previous studies, predictors evaluated were factors potentially affecting nausea or vomiting. For nausea, the following scoring for response was used: 0=absence of nausea; 1=presence of nausea for 3 days after the start of oral oxycodone but continued to take oxycodone; 2=presence of nausea for 3 days and discontinued oxycodone due to nausea. For vomiting, at least 1 vomiting episode during the 3 days was regarded as vomiting-positive. Multivariate ordered logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the predictive factors for nausea or vomiting in cancer patients.

RESULTS

This analysis identified gender (male) (odds ratio [OR]=0.429), lung cancer (OR=2.049), and steroid use (OR=0.417) were significant factors for the occurrence of opioid-induced nausea. For vomiting, gender (male) (OR=0.4) and use of dopamine D2 blockers (OR=2.778) were significant factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Female gender was found to be predictive factors for the occurrence of nausea. Lung cancer might be closely associated with opioid-induced nausea. The use of steroids might be effective as prophylaxis for nausea. Female gender was also a predictive factor for the occurrence of vomiting. Vomiting occurred even if dopamine D2 blockers (prophylactic medication) were given.

Physiology, signaling, and pharmacology of opioid receptors and their ligands in the gastrointestinal tract: current concepts and future perspectives

Opioid receptors are widely distributed in the human body and are crucially involved in numerous physiological processes. These include pain signaling in the central and the peripheral nervous system, reproduction, growth, respiration, and immunological response. Opioid receptors additionally play a major role in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract in physiological and pathophysiological conditions. This review discusses the physiology and pharmacology of the opioid system in the GI tract. We additionally focus on GI disorders and malfunctions, where pathophysiology involves the endogenous opioid system, such as opioid-induced bowel dysfunction, opioid-induced constipation or abdominal pain. Based on recent reports in the field of pharmacology and medicinal chemistry, we will also discuss the opportunities of targeting the opioid system, suggesting future treatment options for functional disorders and inflammatory states of the GI tract.

[Treatment of nausea and vomiting with prokinetics and neuroleptics in palliative care patients : a review]

BACKGROUND

Many recommendations concerning the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients exist but what is the evidence for this? Most studies dealing with this topic have focused on cancer patients under chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy or on patients with postoperative nausea. Cancer patients without chemotherapy or radiation therapy, patients without postoperative nausea, and patients having other diseases with palliative care aspects, such as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), progressive heart failure, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and multiple sclerosis (MS) have been underrepresented in studies on nausea and vomiting so far.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to determine the level of evidence for the treatment of nausea and vomiting with prokinetics and neuroleptics in palliative care patients suffering from far advanced cancer and no longer being treated with chemotherapy or radiation therapy, AIDS, COPD, progressive heart failure, ALS or MS.

METHODS

Two different electronic databases (PubMed und Embase) were used to identify studies. Furthermore, a hand search for related articles was performed. No restriction was made concerning study types. Studies with patients undergoing chemotherapy radiation therapy or suffering from postoperative nausea, pediatric studies and studies published neither in English nor in German were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were found. All studies focused on cancer patients. Despite intensive research studies in patients with AIDS, COPD, heart failure, ALS or MS were not detected. Metoclopramide is seen as an effective drug in many studies whereas the evidence for it is moderate at best. Within the group of neuroleptics, levosupiride and levomepromazine seem to have good antiemetic potential but the evidence level is low.

CONCLUSION

In patients with advanced cancer not being treated with chemotherapy or radiation therapy, metoclopramide can be used to reduce nausea and vomiting. Neuroleptics, such as levosulpiride or levomepromazine are alternatives but their adverse effects have to be considered carefully. The evidence level for prokinetics and neuroleptics is moderate to low. Concerning palliative care of patients with diseases other than cancer no studies exist. More well designed studies in palliative care patients are needed in order to facilitate evidence based antiemetic therapy. The English full text version of this article will be available in SpringerLink as of November 2012 (under "Supplemental").

Nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer

Nausea and vomiting are very common symptoms in cancer both treatment and non-treatment related. Many complications of advanced cancer such as gastroparesis, bowel and outlet obstructions, and brain tumors may have nausea and vomiting or either symptom alone. In a non-obstructed situation, nausea may be more difficult to manage and is more objectionable to patients. There is little research on management of these symptoms except the literature on chemotherapy induced nausea where guidelines exist. This article will review the etiologies of nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer and the medications which have been used to treat them. An etiology based protocol to approach the symptom is outlined.

Differences between opioids: pharmacological, experimental, clinical and economical perspectives

Clinical studies comparing the response and side effects of various opioids have not been able to show robust differences between drugs. Hence, recommendations of the regulatory authorities have been driven by costs with a general tendency in many countries to restrict physician's use of opioids to morphine. Although this approach is recognized as cost-effective in most cases there is solid evidence that, on an individual patient basis, opioids are not all equal. Therefore it is important to have an armamentarium of strong analgesics in clinical practice to ensure a personalized approach in patients who do not respond to standard treatment. In this review we highlight differences between opioids in human studies from a pharmacological, experimental, clinical and health economics point of view. We provide evidence that individuals respond differently to opioids, and that general differences between classes of opioids exist. We recommend that this recognition is used to individualize treatment in difficult cases allowing physicians to have a wide range of treatment options. In the end this will reduce pain and side effects, leading to improved quality of life for the patient and reduce the exploding pain related costs.

[Treatment of nausea and vomiting with 5HT3 receptor antagonists, steroids, antihistamines, anticholinergics, somatostatinantagonists, benzodiazepines and cannabinoids in palliative care patients : a systematic review]

BACKGROUND

Various recommendations exist for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care but only few studies and even less systematic reviews look into antiemetic therapy for patients receiving palliative care.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to analyze the current evidence for antiemetic treatment with 5HT3 receptor antagonists, steroids, antihistamines, anticholinergics, somatostatin analogs, benzodiazepines and cannabinoids in palliative care patients with far advanced cancer not receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy, acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), progressive heart failure, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or multiple sclerosis (MS). Results regarding evidence of treatment with prokinetic and neuroleptic agents will be published separately.

METHODS

The electronic databases PubMed and EmBase were systematically searched for studies (published 1966-2011) dealing with antiemetic therapy in palliative care and electronic retrieval was completed by manual searching. Studies with patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy, pediatric studies and studies published in languages other than English or German were excluded. Studies addressing therapy with 5HT3 receptor antagonists, steroids, antihistamines, anticholinergics, somatostatin analogs, benzodiazepines or cannabinoids were identified and selected for this systematic review.

RESULTS

In the general search 75 relevant studies were found. Of those 36 addressed 5HT3 receptor antagonists, steroids, antihistamines, anticholinergics, somatostatin analogs, benzodiazepines and cannabinoids, 13 considered 5HT3 receptor antagonists, 10 somatostatin antagonists, 9 steroids, 5 cannabinoids, 4 anticholinergics, 1 antihistamines and none benzodiazepines. Furthermore six systematic reviews exist. Evidence for any drug used as an antiemetic is low. Concerning 5HT3 receptor antagonists data are insufficient for recommendations on the treatment of patients with AIDS and MS due to the small size of included patient groups. For patients with cancer contradictory results were published: the larger studies showed a positive effect of 5HT3 receptor antagonists and better efficacy, as compared to metoclopramide, dexamethasone and neuroleptics. Heterogeneous results were found for steroids, with a positive trend for patients with cancer. Data are insufficient for antihistamines. Studies prove effectiveness of butylscopolammonium in the treatment of nausea and vomiting caused by malignant gastrointestinal obstruction, whereas octreotide is superior to butylscopolammonium. Regarding benzodiazepines for symptom control of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients no studies were detected. Cannabinoids were found to relieve nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer and AIDS but with notable side effects. Furthermore, the studies compared cannabinoids to less recent antiemetic drugs but not, for example to 5HT3 receptor antagonists. Regarding symptom control of nausea and vomiting in patients with COPD, progressive heart failure and ALS no studies were undertaken in patients receiving palliative care.

CONCLUSIONS

In palliative care patients with nausea and vomiting 5HT3 receptor antagonists can be used if treatment with other antiemetics, such as metoclopramide and neuroleptics is not sufficient. There is a trend that steroids in combination with other antiemetics improve symptom relief. Cannabinoids rather have a status as a second line antiemetic. In cases of nausea and vomiting caused by malignant gastrointestinal obstruction octreotide showed the best and butylscopolammonium bromide the second best results. Concerning antihistamines and benzodiazepines insufficient data was found. Recommendations in the literature are mainly based on studies in patients with cancer. The overall strength of evidence is low. More well designed studies in palliative care patients are needed in order to provide evidence-based therapy. The English full text version of this article will be available in SpringerLink as of November 2012 (under "Supplemental").

The challenge of international consensus: defining an opioid essential prescription package

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe a new strategy that aimed to facilitate opioid prescription for better pain management.

RECENT FINDINGS

The International Association of Hospice and Palliative Care recently develop a single prescription package (drugs and dosing) with one opioid, one laxative, and one antiemetic for the initiation of opioid treatment in cancer pain and other life-threatening conditions, with the intention to facilitate opioid use, improve patient compliance, and reduce adverse effects.

SUMMARY

The opioid essential prescription package was an international project designed to ensure that opioids are better tolerated by reducing the adverse effects of opioids, which could lead to more sustained improvements in pain management.

Use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of cancer pain: evidence-based recommendations from the EAPC

Here we provide the updated version of the guidelines of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) on the use of opioids for the treatment of cancer pain. The update was undertaken by the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative. Previous EAPC guidelines were reviewed and compared with other currently available guidelines, and consensus recommendations were created by formal international expert panel. The content of the guidelines was defined according to several topics, each of which was assigned to collaborators who developed systematic literature reviews with a common methodology. The recommendations were developed by a writing committee that combined the evidence derived from the systematic reviews with the panellists' evaluations in a co-authored process, and were endorsed by the EAPC Board of Directors. The guidelines are presented as a list of 16 evidence-based recommendations developed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.