Insights into the Current and Possible Future Use of Opioid Antagonists in Relation to Opioid-Induced Constipation and Dysbiosis

A Systematic Review of Naldemedine and Naloxegol for the Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a pervasive and distressing side effect of chronic opioid therapy in patients with cancer pain, significantly impacting their quality of life. Peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAS) were developed for treatment-resistant OIC but most studies were conducted with non-cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE

to discuss two oral formulations of PAMORAs, naldemedine and naloxegol, and to review available evidence of the effectiveness of these drugs for OIC in cancer patients.

METHODS

a comprehensive search to identify primary literature for either naldemedine or naloxegol for OIC in cancer patients.

RESULTS

Only three prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials for naldemedine enrolling cancer patients were identified; the results of a subgroup analysis of two of those studies and two non-interventional post marketing surveillance studies of these trials are also reported here. For naloxegol, only two randomized controlled trials were identified; both were unsuccessful in enrolling sufficient patients. An additional four prospective non-interventional observational studies with naloxegol were found that enrolled cancer patients. There were significantly higher rates of responders in the PAMORA groups than in the placebo groups. The most common side effect for both PAMORAs was diarrhea.

LIMITATIONS

All studies were industry-funded, and given that only three trials were randomized controlled studies, the overall quality of the studies was lacking.

CONCLUSION

Naldemedine or naloxegol appeared safe and useful in the treatment of OIC in cancer patients and may improve their quality of life. Larger-scale randomized placebo-controlled studies of PAMORAs in cancer patients would strengthen existing evidence.

Glycine Transporter 1 Inhibitors: Predictions on Their Possible Mechanisms in the Development of Opioid Analgesic Tolerance

The development of opioid tolerance in patients on long-term opioid analgesic treatment is an unsolved matter in clinical practice thus far. Dose escalation is required to restore analgesic efficacy, but at the price of side effects. Intensive research is ongoing to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of opioid analgesic tolerance in the hope of maintaining opioid analgesic efficacy. N-Methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) antagonists have shown promising effects regarding opioid analgesic tolerance; however, their use is limited by side effects (memory dysfunction). Nevertheless, the GluN2B receptor remains a future target for the discovery of drugs to restore opioid efficacy. Mechanistically, the long-term activation of µ-opioid receptors (MORs) initiates receptor phosphorylation, which triggers β-arrestin-MAPKs and NOS-GC-PKG pathway activation, which ultimately ends with GluN2B receptor overactivation and glutamate release. The presence of glutamate and glycine as co-agonists is a prerequisite for GluN2B receptor activation. The extrasynaptic localization of the GluN2B receptor means it is influenced by the glycine level, which is regulated by astrocytic glycine transporter 1 (GlyT1). Enhanced astrocytic glycine release by reverse transporter mechanisms as a consequence of high glutamate levels or unconventional MOR activation on astrocytes could further activate the GluN2B receptor. GlyT1 inhibitors might inhibit this condition, thereby reducing opioid tolerance.

Potential effects of the most prescribed drugs on the microbiota-gut-brain-axis: A review

The link between drug-induced dysbiosis and its influence on brain diseases through gut-residing bacteria and their metabolites, named the microbiota-gut-brain axis (MGBA), remains largely unexplored. This review investigates the effects of commonly prescribed drugs (metformin, statins, proton-pump-inhibitors, NSAIDs, and anti-depressants) on the gut microbiota, comparing the findings with altered bacterial populations in major brain diseases (depression, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's). The report aims to explore whether drugs can influence the development and progression of brain diseases via the MGBA. Central findings indicate that all explored drugs induce dysbiosis. These dysbiosis patterns were associated with brain disorders. The influence on brain diseases varied across different bacterial taxa, possibly mediated by direct effects or through bacterial metabolites. Each drug induced both positive and negative changes in the abundance of bacteria, indicating a counterbalancing effect. Moreover, the above-mentioned drugs exhibited similar effects, suggesting that they may counteract or enhance each other's effects on brain diseases when taken together by comorbid patients. In conclusion, the interplay of bacterial species and their abundances may have a greater impact on brain diseases than individual drugs or bacterial strains. Future research is needed to better understand drug-induced dysbiosis and the implications for brain disease pathogenesis, with the potential to develop more effective therapeutic options for patients with brain-related diseases.