-
Medicine Apr 2016The adverse events (AEs) of oxycodone in cancer-related pain were controversial, so we conducted a meta-analysis to determine it. PubMed, Embase, CBM, CNKI, WanFang... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The adverse events (AEs) of oxycodone in cancer-related pain were controversial, so we conducted a meta-analysis to determine it. PubMed, Embase, CBM, CNKI, WanFang database, The Cochrane library, Web of Science, and the reference of included studies were searched to recognize pertinent studies. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all AEs were all extracted. The fixed-effects model was used to calculate pooled RRs and 95% CIs. Power calculation was performed using macro embedded in SAS software after all syntheses were completed. We identified 11 eligible trials involving 1211 patients: 604 patients included in oxycodone group and 607 patients involved in control group. Our quantitative analysis included 8 AEs, and the pooled analyses indicated that oxycodone compared with other opioids in cancer-related pain were not significantly decreased RRs of all AEs (dizziness RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.69-1.30, Z = 0.35, P = 0.72; nausea RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.72-1.07, Z = 1.26, P = 0.21; vomiting RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.70-1.15, Z = 0.9, P = 0.37; sleepiness RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.38-1.36, Z = 0.36, P = 0.72; constipation RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.81-1.19, Z = 0.21, P = 0.83; anorexia RR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.58-1.62, Z = 0.11, P = 0.91; pruritus RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.44-1.30, Z = 1.01, P = 0.31; dysuria RR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.07-1.62, Z = 1.36, P = 0.1)]. The subgroup analysis shown that Ox controlled-release (CR) had less sleepiness compared with MS-contin (Mc) CR (RR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.25-0.90, P = 0.02). The power analysis suggests that all AEs have low statistical power. The present meta-analysis detected that no statistically significant difference were found among oxycodone and other opioids in all AEs, but Ox CR may had less sleepiness compared with Mc CR when subgroup analysis were conducted.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Delayed-Action Preparations; Humans; Neoplasms; Oxycodone; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27082588
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003341 -
Pain and Therapy Jun 2019Optimal pain management is crucial to the postoperative recovery process. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous oxycodone with intravenous... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Optimal pain management is crucial to the postoperative recovery process. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous oxycodone with intravenous fentanyl, morphine, sufentanil, pethidine, and hydromorphone for acute postoperative pain.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases was performed for randomized controlled trials published from 2008 through 2017 (inclusive) that evaluated the acute postoperative analgesic efficacy of intravenous oxycodone against fentanyl, morphine, sufentanil, pethidine, and hydromorphone in adult patients (age ≥ 18 years). Outcomes examined included analgesic consumption, pain intensity levels, side effects, and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS
Eleven studies were included in the review; six compared oxycodone with fentanyl, two compared oxycodone with morphine, and three compared oxycodone with sufentanil. There were no eligible studies comparing oxycodone with pethidine or hydromorphone. Overall, analgesic consumption was lower with oxycodone than with fentanyl or sufentanil. Oxycodone exhibited better analgesic efficacy than fentanyl and sufentanil, and comparable analgesic efficacy to morphine. In terms of safety, there was a tendency towards more side effects with oxycodone than with fentanyl, but the incidence of side effects with oxycodone was comparable to morphine and sufentanil. Where patient satisfaction was evaluated, higher satisfaction levels were observed with oxycodone than with sufentanil and comparable satisfaction was noted when comparing oxycodone with fentanyl. Patient satisfaction was not evaluated in the studies comparing oxycodone with morphine.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that intravenous oxycodone provides better analgesic efficacy than fentanyl and sufentanil, and comparable efficacy to morphine with less adverse events such as sedation. No studies comparing intravenous oxycodone with pethidine or hydromorphone were identified in this review. Better alignment of study methodologies for future research in this area is recommended to provide the best evidence base for a meta-analysis.
FUNDING
Mundipharma Singapore Holding Pte Ltd, Singapore.
PubMed: 31004317
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-019-0122-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. Views on children's pain have changed over time and relief of pain is now seen as important. In the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, and it was assumed that children quickly forgot about painful experiences.We designed a suite of seven reviews in chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) to review the evidence for children's pain using pharmacological interventions.As one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity for children and adolescents in the world today, childhood cancer (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Cancer pain in infants, children, and adolescents is primarily nociceptive pain with negative long term effects. Cancer-related pain is generally caused directly by the tumour itself such as compressing on the nerve or inflammation of the organs. Cancer-related pain generally occurs as a result of perioperative procedures, nerve damage caused by radiation or chemotherapy treatments, or mucositis. However, this review focused on pain caused directly by the tumour itself such as nerve infiltration, external nerve compression, and other inflammatory events.Opioids are used worldwide for the treatment of pain. Currently available opioids include: buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, and tramadol. Opioids are generally available in healthcare settings across most developed countries but access may be restricted in developing countries. To achieve adequate pain relief in children using opioids, with an acceptable grade of adverse effects, the recommended method is to start with a low dose gradually titrated to effect or unacceptable adverse effect in the child.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy, and adverse events, of opioids used to treat cancer-related pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid and Embase via Ovid from inception to 22 February 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with or without blinding, of any dose, and any route, treating cancer-related pain in children and adolescents, comparing opioids with placebo or an active comparator.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and planned to create a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
No studies were identified that were eligible for inclusion in this review (very low quality evidence). Several studies tested opioids on adults with cancer-related pain, but none in participants aged from birth to 17 years.We rated the quality of evidence as very low, downgraded due to a lack of available data; no analyses could be undertaken.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No conclusions can be drawn about efficacy or harm in the use of opioids to treat cancer-related pain in children and adolescents. As a result, there is no RCT evidence to support or refute the use of opioids to treat cancer-related pain in children and adolescents.
Topics: Adolescent; Analgesics, Opioid; Cancer Pain; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn
PubMed: 28722116
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012564.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022There are ongoing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid-related harms, including overdose and dependence, with an associated increase in treatment demand. People... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There are ongoing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid-related harms, including overdose and dependence, with an associated increase in treatment demand. People dependent on pharmaceutical opioids appear to differ in important ways from people who use heroin, yet most opioid agonist treatment research has been conducted in people who use heroin. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of maintenance opioid agonist pharmacotherapy for the treatment of pharmaceutical opioid dependence.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2022: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases, and two trial registers. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs with adults and adolescents examining maintenance opioid agonist treatments that made the following two comparisons. 1. Full opioid agonists (methadone, morphine, oxycodone, levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM), or codeine) versus different full opioid agonists or partial opioid agonists (buprenorphine) for maintenance treatment. 2. Full or partial opioid agonist maintenance versus non-opioid agonist treatments (detoxification, opioid antagonist, or psychological treatment without opioid agonist treatment).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified eight RCTs that met inclusion criteria (709 participants). We found four studies that compared methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatment, and four studies that compared buprenorphine maintenance to either buprenorphine taper (in addition to psychological treatment) or a non-opioid maintenance treatment comparison. We found low-certainty evidence from three studies of a difference between methadone and buprenorphine in favour of methadone on self-reported opioid use at end of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.86; 165 participants), and low-certainty evidence from four studies finding a difference in favour of methadone for retention in treatment (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43; 379 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from three studies showing no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on substance use measured with urine drug screens at end of treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 206 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence from one study of no difference in days of self-reported opioid use (mean difference 1.41 days, 95% CI 3.37 lower to 0.55 days higher; 129 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on adverse events (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.93; 206 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from four studies favouring maintenance buprenorphine treatment over non-opioid treatments in terms of fewer opioid positive urine drug tests at end of treatment (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.84; 270 participants), and very low-certainty evidence from four studies finding no difference on self-reported opioid use in the past 30 days at end of treatment (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.01; 276 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in the number of days of unsanctioned opioid use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.09; 205 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from four studies favouring buprenorphine maintenance over non-opioid treatments on retention in treatment (RR 3.02, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.27; 333 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in adverse effects between buprenorphine maintenance and non-opioid treatments (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.48; 252 participants). The main weaknesses in the quality of the data was the use of open-label study designs, and difference in follow-up rates between treatment arms.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very low- to moderate-certainty evidence supporting the use of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Methadone or buprenorphine did not differ on some outcomes, although on the outcomes of retention and self-reported substance use some results favoured methadone. Maintenance treatment with buprenorphine appears more effective than non-opioid treatments. Due to the overall very low- to moderate-certainty evidence and small sample sizes, there is the possibility that the further research may change these findings.
Topics: Adolescent; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Heroin; Humans; Methadone; Opioid-Related Disorders; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 36063082
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011117.pub3 -
BioMed Research International 2019Oxycodone is a widely used opioid analgesic, which is involved in cancer pain and non-cancer pain. This study is intended to understand the publication characteristics...
BACKGROUND
Oxycodone is a widely used opioid analgesic, which is involved in cancer pain and non-cancer pain. This study is intended to understand the publication characteristics of oxycodone research field and assess the quality of pertinent articles from 1998 to 2017.
METHODS
Oxycodone-related publications from 1998 to 2017 were retrieved from the Web of Science (WOS) and PubMed database. These papers were coded across several categories, such as total number, journals, countries, institutions, authors and citations reports. And the analysis of co-occurrence keywords was handled by VOSviewer software.
RESULTS
According to search strategies, a total of 2659 articles on oxycodone were published in world from 1998 to 2017 in WOS. Among the top 10 most productive organizations, six of them were American institutes, two of them were pharmaceutical enterprises and the other three were Finnish, Australian and Canadian institutes, which is similar with the distribution by country/region. Drewes AM from Denmark published most articles and PAIN MEDICINE is the most productive journal in oxycodone area. Meanwhile, clinical studies occupy a dominant position during the past 20 years. The 10 most cited papers were listed. Among these articles, 8 of them are reviews and 2 of those are meta-analysis. And the last decade (2008-2017) displayed that the newest keywords focus on "double-blind", "randomized controlled trial" and "neuropathic pain".
CONCLUSIONS
The findings provided a comprehensive overview of oxycodone research. In view of the adverse effects of oxycodone, high-quality oxycodone studies both in basic studies and clinical trials need to be completed.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Bibliometrics; Cancer Pain; Humans; Neuralgia; Oxycodone; Publications
PubMed: 31781650
DOI: 10.1155/2019/9096201 -
Sleep Medicine Sep 2023Narcolepsy type 1 is a primary sleep disorder caused by deficient hypocretin transmission leading to excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy. Opioids have been...
OBJECTIVE
Narcolepsy type 1 is a primary sleep disorder caused by deficient hypocretin transmission leading to excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy. Opioids have been suggested to increase the number of hypocretin-producing neurons. We aimed to assess opioid use and its self-reported effect on narcolepsy type 1 symptom severity through a literature review and questionnaire study.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed literature on opioid use in narcolepsy. We also recruited 100 people with narcolepsy type 1 who completed an online questionnaire on opioid use in the previous three years. The main questionnaire topics were the indication for use, and the possible effects on narcolepsy symptom severity. Structured follow-up interviews were conducted when opioid use was reported.
RESULTS
The systematic literature review mainly showed improvements in narcolepsy symptom severity. Recent opioid use was reported by 16/100 questionnaire respondents, who had used 20 opioids (codeine: 7/20, tramadol: 6/20, oxycodone: 6/20, fentanyl: 1/20). Narcolepsy symptom changes were reported in 11/20. Positive effects on disturbed nocturnal sleep (9/20), excessive daytime sleepiness (4/20), hypnagogic hallucinations (3/17), cataplexy (2/18), and sleep paralysis (1/13) were most pronounced for oxycodone (4/6) and codeine (4/7).
CONCLUSIONS
Opioids were relatively frequently used compared to a similarly young general Dutch sample. Oxycodone and, to a lesser extent, codeine were associated with self-reported narcolepsy symptom severity improvements. Positive changes in disturbed nocturnal sleep and daytime sleepiness were most frequently reported, while cataplexy effects were less pronounced. Randomised controlled trials are now needed to verify the potential of opioids as therapeutic agents for narcolepsy.
Topics: Humans; Cataplexy; Analgesics, Opioid; Orexins; Oxycodone; Narcolepsy; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 37437491
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2023.06.008 -
EFORT Open Reviews Jul 2022Considering the adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids for treating osteoarthritis (OA), development of drugs that are more... (Review)
Review
Does anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody treatment have the potential to replace nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids in treating hip or knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
PURPOSE
Considering the adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids for treating osteoarthritis (OA), development of drugs that are more effective and better tolerated than existing treatments is urgently needed. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-nerve growth factor (NGF) monoclonal antibodies vs active comparator therapy, such as NSAIDs and oxycodone, in treating hip or knee OA.
METHODS
Databases were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before January 2022. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed.
RESULTS
Six RCTs that included 4325 patients were identified. Almost all the RCTs indicated that moderate doses of anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment significantly improved efficacy outcomes based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score, the WOMAC physical function score and the Patient's Global Assessment compared with those of the active comparator. At least half of the RCTs indicated that the incidence of severe adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs) and total joint replacement were not significantly different between anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment and active comparator therapy, but the outcomes of some studies may have been limited by a short duration of follow-up. Most RCTs suggested that anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment had a lower incidence of gastrointestinal and cardiovascular AEs. However, the majority of RCTs reported a higher incidence of abnormal peripheral sensation with anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment. Furthermore, the higher incidence of rapidly progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA) with anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment should also not be overlooked, and the identification of patient characteristics that increase the risk of RPOA is critical in further studies.
CONCLUSION
Based on the current research evidence, anti-NGF monoclonal antibodies are not yet a replacement for analgesic drugs such as NSAIDs but might be a new treatment option for hip or knee OA patients who are intolerant or unresponsive to nonopioid or opioid treatment. Notably, however, considering the inconsistency and inconclusive evidence on the safety outcomes of recent studies, more research is needed, and long-term follow-up is required.
PubMed: 35900204
DOI: 10.1530/EOR-21-0103 -
Drugs & Aging Jun 2017There is substantial evidence that the use of opioids increases the risk of adverse outcomes such as delirium, but whether this risk differs between the various opioids... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
There is substantial evidence that the use of opioids increases the risk of adverse outcomes such as delirium, but whether this risk differs between the various opioids remains controversial. In this systematic review, we evaluate and discuss possible differences in the risk of delirium from the use of various types of opioids in older patients.
METHODS
We performed a search in MEDLINE by combining search terms on delirium and opioids. A specific search filter for use in geriatric medicine was used. Quality was scored according to the quality assessment for cohort studies of the Dutch Cochrane Institute.
RESULTS
Six studies were included, all performed in surgical departments and all observational. No study was rated high quality, one was rated moderate quality, and five were rated low quality. Information about dose, route, and timing of administration of the opioid was frequently missing. Pain and other important risk factors of delirium were often not taken into account. Use of tramadol or meperidine was associated with an increased risk of delirium, whereas the use of morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone, and codeine were not, when compared with no opioid. Meperidine was also associated with an increased risk of delirium compared with other opioids, whereas tramadol was not. The risk of delirium appeared to be lower with hydromorphone or fentanyl, compared with other opioids. Numbers used for comparisons were small.
CONCLUSION
Some data suggest that meperidine may lead to a higher perioperative risk for delirium; however, high-quality studies that compare different opioids are lacking. Further comparative research is needed.
Topics: Aged; Analgesics, Opioid; Delirium; Humans; Hydromorphone; Meperidine; Morphine; Oxycodone; Pain; Pain Measurement; Risk Factors; Tramadol
PubMed: 28405945
DOI: 10.1007/s40266-017-0455-9 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Feb 2017To systematically review the quantitative and qualitative evidence base pertaining to the prevalence, practice of, and treatment response to the diversion of prescribed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
To systematically review the quantitative and qualitative evidence base pertaining to the prevalence, practice of, and treatment response to the diversion of prescribed opiates in the prison setting.
METHODS
Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, ASSIA and Science Direct databases were searched for papers from 1995 to the present relevant to the abuse of prescribed opiate medication. Identified journals and their reference lists were hand searched for other relevant articles. Of the abstracts identified as relevant, full text papers were retrieved and critiqued against the inclusion criteria for the review.
RESULTS
Three hundred and fifty-five abstracts were identified, leading to 42 full-text articles being retrieved. Of those, 10 papers were included in the review. Significant differences in abuse behaviours between different countries were reported. However, a key theme emerged from the data regarding a culture of nasal administration of prescribed sublingual buprenorphine within some prisons due to both reduced prevalence of injection within prison and reduced supplies of illicit drugs within prison. The buprenorphine/naloxone preparation appears to be less amenable to abuse. The review highlighted a paucity of empirical research pertaining to both prevalence of the phenomenon and treatment responses.
CLINICAL AND RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
Healthcare providers within prisons need to prescribe opioids in the least abuseable preparation since the risk of abuse is significant, despite widespread processes of supervised dispensing. Prescription medication abuse is not limited to opioids and the predominant drug of abuse in an individual prison can rapidly change according to availability.
Topics: Administration, Sublingual; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Drug Prescriptions; Humans; Illicit Drugs; Narcotics; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Prescription Drug Misuse; Prevalence; Prisons; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28086177
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.11.032 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is characterised by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and gastric reflux. It is one of the major adverse events... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is characterised by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and gastric reflux. It is one of the major adverse events (AEs) of treatment for pain in cancer and palliative care, resulting in increased morbidity and reduced quality of life. This review is a partial update of a 2008 review, and critiques as previous update (2018) trials only for people with cancer and people receiving palliative care.
OBJECTIVES
To assess for OIBD in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care the effectiveness and safety of mu-opioid antagonists (MOAs) versus different doses of MOAs, alternative pharmacological/non-pharmacological interventions, placebo, or no treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science (December 2021), clinical trial registries and regulatory websites. We sought contact with MOA manufacturers for further data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness and safety of MOAs for OIBD in people with cancer and people at a palliative stage irrespective of the type of terminal disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The appropriateness of combining data from the trials depended upon sufficient homogeneity across trials. Our primary outcomes were laxation response, effect on analgesia, and AEs. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and created summary of findings tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies (two new trials) randomising in-total 1343 adults with cancer irrespective of stage, or at palliative care stage of any disease. The MOAs were oral naldemedine and naloxone (alone or in combination with oxycodone), and subcutaneous methylnaltrexone. The trials compared MOAs with placebo, MOAs at different doses, or in combination with other drugs. Two trials of naldemedine and three of naloxone with oxycodone were in people with cancer irrespective of disease stage. The trial on naloxone alone was in people with advanced cancer. Four trials on methylnaltrexone were in palliative care where most participants had advanced cancer. All trials were vulnerable to biases; most commonly, blinding of the outcome assessor was not reported. Oral naldemedine versus placebo Risk (i.e. chance) of spontaneous laxations in the medium term (over two weeks) for naldemedine was over threefold greater risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.52, 2 trials, 418 participants, I² = 0%. Number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 3 to 4; moderate-certainty evidence). Earlier risk of spontaneous laxations and patient assessment of bowel change was not reported. Very low-certainty evidence showed naldemedine had little to no effect on opioid withdrawal symptoms. There was little to no difference in the risk of serious (non-fatal) AEs (RR 3.34, 95% CI 0.85 to 13.15: low-certainty evidence). Over double the risk of AEs (non-serious) reported with naldemedine (moderate-certainty evidence). Low-dose oral naldemedine versus higher dose Risk of spontaneous laxations was lower for the lower dose (medium term, 0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.89, 1 trial, 111 participants (low-certainty evidence)). Earlier risk of spontaneous laxations and patient assessment of bowel change not reported. Low-certainty evidence showed little to no difference on opioid withdrawal symptoms (0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg mean difference (MD) -0.30, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.25), and occurrences of serious AEs (0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.17). Low-certainty evidence showed little to no difference on non-serious AEs. Oral naloxone versus placebo Risk of spontaneous laxations and AEs not reported. Little to no difference in pain intensity (very low-certainty evidence). Full data not given. The trial reported that no serious AEs occurred. Oral naloxone + oxycodone versus oxycodone Risk of spontaneous laxations within 24 hours and in the medium term not reported. Low-certainty evidence showed naloxone with oxycodone reduced the risk of opioid withdrawal symptoms. There was little to no difference in the risk of serious (non-fatal) AEs (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.06), 3 trials, 362 participants, I² = 55%: very low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in risk of AEs (low-certainty evidence). Subcutaneous methylnaltrexone versus placebo Risk of spontaneous laxations within 24 hours with methylnaltrexone was fourfold greater than placebo (RR 2.97, 95% CI 2.13 to 4.13. 2 trials, 287 participants, I² = 31%. NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 3; low-certainty evidence). Risk of spontaneous laxations in the medium term was over tenfold greater with methylnaltrexone (RR 8.15, 95% CI 4.76 to 13.95, 2 trials, 305 participants, I² = 47%. NNTB 2, 95% CI 2 to 2; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence showed methylnaltrexone reduced the risk of opioid withdrawal symptoms, and did not increase risk of a serious AE (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93. I² = 0%; 2 trials, 364 participants). The risk of AEs was higher for methylnaltrexone (low-certainty evidence). Lower-dose subcutaneous methylnaltrexone versus higher dose There was little to no difference in risk of spontaneous laxations in the medium-term (1 mg versus 5 mg or greater: RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 10.39; 1 trial, 26 participants very low-certainty evidence), or in patient assessment of improvement in bowel status (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.35, 1 trial, 102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Medium-term assessment of spontaneous laxations and serious AEs not reported. There was little to no difference in symptoms of opioid withdrawal (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.34, 1 trial, 102 participants) or occurrence of AEs (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This update's findings for naldemedine and naloxone with oxycodone have been strengthened with two new trials, but conclusions have not changed. Moderate-certainty evidence for oral naldemedine on risk of spontaneous laxations and non-serious AEs suggests in people with cancer that naldemedine may improve bowel function over two weeks and increase the risk of AEs. There was low-certainty evidence on serious AEs. Moderate-certainty evidence for methylnaltrexone on spontaneous laxations over two weeks suggests subcutaneous methylnaltrexone may improve bowel function in people receiving palliative care, but certainty of evidence for AEs was low. More trials are needed, more evaluation of AEs, outcomes patients rate as important, and in children.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Child; Humans; Naloxone; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Neoplasms; Opioid-Induced Constipation; Oxycodone; Palliative Care; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 36106667
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006332.pub4