-
Postgraduate Medicine 2016Constipation is a common adverse effect in patients requiring long-term opioid therapy for pain control. Methylnaltrexone, a quaternary peripheral mu-opioid receptor... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Constipation is a common adverse effect in patients requiring long-term opioid therapy for pain control. Methylnaltrexone, a quaternary peripheral mu-opioid receptor antagonist, is an effective treatment of opioid induced constipation (OIC) without affecting centrally mediated analgesia. Our objective was to conduct a review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of methylnaltrexone for treatment of OIC, as well as to provide a clinical discussion regarding newly developed alternatives and provide the current treatment algorithm utilized at our institution.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials using Cochrane Collaboration Databases and MEDLINE from 2007-present. Literature related to methylnaltrexone, opioids, opioid receptors, opioid antagonists, opioid-induced constipation were reviewed. A meta-analysis was completed with the primary outcome of rescue-free bowel movement (RFBM) within four hours of administration. All pooled analyses were based on random-effects models.
RESULTS
1239 patients were analyzed; 599 received methylnaltrexone and 640 received placebo. With a 95% CI calculated, the true risk difference is between 0.267 and 0.385, demonstrating a statistically significant difference in RFBM between treatment and placebo groups (p < 0.0001). Both the 0.15 mg/kg, 0.30 mg/kg doses every other day, and 12 mg/day dose were found to have increased risk of RFBM compared to placebo.
CONCLUSION
Results support the use of methylnaltrexone. Furthermore, the use of methylnaltrexone to induce laxation may decrease use of health care resources, increase work productivity, and improve cost utilization. New treatments have been made available; however, controlled clinical studies are needed to demonstrate long-term efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness. Possible limitations of this study include the relatively small number of randomized, placebo-controlled trials investigating the efficacy of methylnaltrexone versus placebo. There is also the possibility of publication bias, which may lead to overestimating the efficacy of methylnaltrexone in treating OIC.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Chronic Pain; Constipation; Humans; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Receptors, Opioid, mu; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26839023
DOI: 10.1080/00325481.2016.1149017 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Apr 2024Cancer-related pain often requires opioid treatment with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) as its most frequent gastrointestinal side-effect. Both for prevention and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cancer-related pain often requires opioid treatment with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) as its most frequent gastrointestinal side-effect. Both for prevention and treatment of OIC osmotic (e.g. polyethylene glycol) and stimulant (e.g. bisacodyl) laxatives are widely used. Newer drugs such as the peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) and naloxone in a fixed combination with oxycodone have become available for the management of OIC. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to give an overview of the scientific evidence on pharmacological strategies for the prevention and treatment of OIC in cancer patients.
METHODS
A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library was completed from inception up to 22 October 2022. Randomized and non-randomized studies were systematically selected. Bowel function and adverse drug events were assessed.
RESULTS
Twenty trials (prevention: five RCTs and three cohort studies; treatment: ten RCTs and two comparative cohort studies) were included in the review. Regarding the prevention of OIC, three RCTs compared laxatives with other laxatives, finding no clear differences in effectivity of the laxatives used. One cohort study showed a significant benefit of magnesium oxide compared with no laxative. One RCT found a significant benefit for the PAMORA naldemedine compared with magnesium oxide. Preventive use of oxycodone/naloxone did not show a significant difference in two out of three other studies compared to oxycodone or fentanyl. A meta-analysis was not possible. Regarding the treatment of OIC, two RCTs compared laxatives, of which one RCT found that polyethylene glycol was significantly more effective than sennosides. Seven studies compared an opioid antagonist (naloxone, methylnaltrexone or naldemedine) with placebo and three studies compared different dosages of opioid antagonists. These studies with opioid antagonists were used for the meta-analysis. Oxycodone/naloxone showed a significant improvement in Bowel Function Index compared to oxycodone with laxatives (MD -13.68; 95 % CI -18.38 to -8.98; I = 58 %). Adverse drug event rates were similar amongst both groups, except for nausea in favour of oxycodone/naloxone (RR 0.51; 95 % CI 0.31-0.83; I = 0 %). Naldemedine (NAL) and methylnaltrexone (MNTX) demonstrated significantly higher response rates compared to placebo (NAL: RR 2.07, 95 % CI 1.64-2.61, I = 0 %; MNTX: RR 3.83, 95 % CI 2.81-5.22, I = 0 %). With regard to adverse events, abdominal pain was more present in treatment with methylnaltrexone and diarrhea was significantly more present in treatment with naldemedine. Different dosages of methylnaltrexone were not significantly different with regard to both efficacy and adverse drug event rates.
CONCLUSIONS
Magnesium oxide and naldemedine are most likely effective for prevention of OIC in cancer patients. Naloxone in a fixed combination with oxycodone, naldemedine and methylnaltrexone effectively treat OIC in cancer patients with acceptable adverse events. However, their effect has not been compared to standard (osmotic and stimulant) laxatives. More studies comparing standard laxatives with each other and with opioid antagonists are necessary before recommendations for clinical practice can be made.
Topics: Humans; Laxatives; Analgesics, Opioid; Narcotic Antagonists; Constipation; Oxycodone; Opioid-Induced Constipation; Magnesium Oxide; Cohort Studies; Naloxone; Polyethylene Glycols; Neoplasms; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Naltrexone
PubMed: 38452708
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102704 -
Neurogastroenterology and Motility Dec 2023Constipation is frequent in critically ill patients, and potentially related to adverse outcomes. Peripherally-active mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Narcotic Antagonists; Analgesics, Opioid; Constipation; Opioid-Induced Constipation; Retrospective Studies; Critical Illness; Naltrexone; Laxatives
PubMed: 37869768
DOI: 10.1111/nmo.14694 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Jul 2020When opioid-induced constipation is treated with centrally acting opioid antagonists, there may be opioid withdrawal or aggravation of pain due to inhibition of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Constipation; Humans; Laxatives; Narcotic Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Opioid, mu; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32462777
DOI: 10.1111/apt.15791 -
Oncology Nursing Forum Nov 2020A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to inform the development of national clinical practice guidelines on the management of cancer constipation. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to inform the development of national clinical practice guidelines on the management of cancer constipation.
LITERATURE SEARCH
PubMed®, Wiley Cochrane Library, and CINAHL® were searched for studies published from May 2009 to May 2019.
DATA EVALUATION
Two investigators independently reviewed and extracted data from eligible studies. The Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool was used, and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.
SYNTHESIS
For patients with cancer and opioid-induced constipation, moderate benefit was found for osmotic or stimulant laxatives; small benefit was found for methylnaltrexone, naldemedine, and electroacupuncture. For patients with cancer and non-opioid-related constipation, moderate benefit was found for naloxegol, prucalopride, lubiprostone, and linaclotide; trivial benefit was found for acupuncture.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Effective strategies for managing opioid-induced and non-opioid-related constipation in patients with cancer include lifestyle, pharmacologic, and complementary approaches.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL CAN BE FOUND AT&NBSP;HTTPS
//bit.ly/3c4yewT.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Constipation; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Neoplasms
PubMed: 33063777
DOI: 10.1188/20.ONF.E211-E224 -
Pain Medicine (Malden, Mass.) Sep 2008Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OBD) is characterized by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and increased gastric reflux. OBD occurs both acutely and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OBD) is characterized by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and increased gastric reflux. OBD occurs both acutely and chronically, in multiple disease states, resulting in increased morbidity and reduced quality of life.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of traditional and peripherally active opioid antagonists vs conventional interventions for OBD.
DESIGN
We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE. Additional reports were identified from the reference lists of retrieved articles.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials that investigated the efficacy of mu-opioid antagonists for OBD.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data were extracted by two independent investigators and included demographic variables, diagnoses, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events.
RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS
Twenty-two articles met inclusion criteria and provided data on 2,352 opioid antagonist-treated patients. The opioid antagonist investigated was alvimopan (eight studies), methylnaltrexone (six), naloxone (seven), and nalbuphine (one). Meta-analysis demonstrated that methylnaltrexone and alvimopan are efficacious in reversing opioid-induced increased gastrointestinal transit time and constipation, and that alvimopan is safe and efficacious in treating postoperative ileus. The incidence of adverse events with opioid antagonists was similar to placebo and generally reported as mild-to-moderate.
CONCLUSIONS
Insufficient evidence exists for the safety or efficacy of naloxone or nalbuphine in the treatment of OBD. Long-term efficacy and safety of any of the opioid antagonists is unknown, as is the incidence or nature of rare adverse events. Alvimopan and methylnaltrexone both show promise in treating OBD, but further data will be required to fully assess their place in therapy.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Animals; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Narcotic Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Opioid, mu
PubMed: 18828197
DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00335.x -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Oct 2018Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a common problem in patients on chronic opioid therapy for cancer-related and non-cancer-related pain. Approved treatments for OIC... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a common problem in patients on chronic opioid therapy for cancer-related and non-cancer-related pain. Approved treatments for OIC are methylnaltrexone, naloxone, naloxegol, alvimopan, naldemedine, and lubiprostone. Since a meta-analysis performed in 2014, 2 new agents have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of OIC (naloxegol and naldemedine).
METHODS
We conducted a search of the medical literature following the protocol outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until March 2017 to identify randomized controlled trials of peripheral μ-opioid-receptor antagonists (methylnaltrexone, naloxone, naloxegol, alvimopan, axelopran, or naldemedine), lubiprostone, or prucalopride. Response to therapy was extracted in a dichotomous assessment as an overall response to therapy. The effect of pharmacologic therapies was pooled and reported as a relative risk (RR) of failure to respond to the treatment drug, with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
We included 27 placebo-controlled trials in our meta-analysis (23 trials evaluated μ-opioid-receptor antagonists, 3 trials evaluated lubiprostone, and 1 trial evaluated prucalopride). In these trials, 5390 patients received a drug and 3491 received a placebo. Overall, μ-opioid-receptor antagonists, lubiprostone, and prucalopride were superior to placebo for the treatment of OIC, with a RR of failure to respond to therapy of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.64-0.75) and an overall number needed to treat of 5 (95% CI, 4-7). When restricted to only Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for OIC, the RR of failure to respond to therapy was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.62-0.77), with a number needed to treat of 5 (95% CI, 4-7). Sensitivity analyses and meta-regression performed to account for heterogeneity showed that treatment was more likely to be effective in study populations taking higher doses of opiates at baseline or refractory to laxatives. Study duration and prespecified primary outcome did not affect the RR of failure. Participants who received μ-opioid-receptor antagonists were significantly more likely to have diarrhea, abdominal pain, nausea, or vomiting than patients who received placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found μ-opioid-receptor antagonists to be safe and effective for the treatment of OIC. Prescription-strength laxatives (prucalopride, lubiprostone) are slightly better than placebo in reducing OIC.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Constipation; Female; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Male; Narcotic Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Opioid, mu; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29374616
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.01.021 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2008Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OBD) is characterized by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and increased gastric reflux. OBD occurs both acutely and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OBD) is characterized by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and increased gastric reflux. OBD occurs both acutely and chronically, in multiple disease states, resulting in increased morbidity and reduced quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of traditional and peripherally active opioid antagonists versus conventional interventions for OBD.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE in January 2007. Additional reports were identified from the reference lists of retrieved papers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials that investigated the efficacy of mu-opioid antagonists for OBD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted by two independent review authors and included demographic variables, diagnoses, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria and provided data on 2871 opioid antagonist-treated patients. The opioid antagonists investigated were alvimopan (nine studies), methylnaltrexone (six), naloxone (seven), and nalbuphine (one). Meta-analysis demonstrated that methylnaltrexone and alvimopan were better than placebo in reversing opioid-induced increased gastrointestinal transit time and constipation, and that alvimopan appears to be safe and efficacious in treating postoperative ileus. The incidence of adverse events with opioid antagonists was similar to placebo and generally reported as mild-to-moderate.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Insufficient evidence exists for the safety or efficacy of naloxone or nalbuphine in the treatment of OBD. Long-term efficacy and safety of any of the opioid antagonists is unknown, as is the incidence or nature of rare adverse events. Alvimopan and methylnaltrexone both show promise in treating OBD, but further data will be required to fully assess their place in therapy.
Topics: Constipation; Defecation; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Intestinal Diseases; Nalbuphine; Naloxone; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Opioid-Related Disorders; Piperidines; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Receptors, Opioid, mu
PubMed: 18425947
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006332.pub2 -
Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine 2017Opioid-induced constipation has a negative impact on quality of life for patients with chronic pain and can affect more than a third of patients. A related but separate... (Review)
Review
Opioid-induced constipation has a negative impact on quality of life for patients with chronic pain and can affect more than a third of patients. A related but separate entity is postoperative ileus, which is an abnormal pattern of gastrointestinal motility after surgery. Nonselective μ-opioid receptor antagonists reverse constipation and opioid-induced ileus but cross the blood-brain barrier and may reverse analgesia. Peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists target the μ-opioid receptor without reversing analgesia. Three such agents are US Food and Drug Administration approved. We reviewed the literature for randomized controlled trials that studied the efficacy of alvimopan, methylnaltrexone, and naloxegol in treating either opioid-induced constipation or postoperative ileus. Peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists may be effective in treating both opioid-induced bowel dysfunction and postoperative ileus, but definitive conclusions are not possible because of study inconsistency and the relatively low quality of evidence. Comparisons of agents are difficult because of heterogeneous end points and no head-to-head studies.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Constipation; Humans; Ileus; Narcotic Antagonists; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29016552
DOI: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000671 -
The American Journal of Gastroenterology Oct 2013There has been no definitive synthesis of the evidence for any benefit of available pharmacological therapies in opioid-induced constipation (OIC). We conducted a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
There has been no definitive synthesis of the evidence for any benefit of available pharmacological therapies in opioid-induced constipation (OIC). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to address this deficit.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials through to December 2012 to identify placebo-controlled trials of μ-opioid receptor antagonists, prucalopride, lubiprostone, and linaclotide in the treatment of adults with OIC. No minimum duration of therapy was required. Trials had to report a dichotomous assessment of overall response to therapy, and data were pooled using a random effects model. Effect of pharmacological therapies was reported as relative risk (RR) of failure to respond to therapy, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Fourteen eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of μ-opioid receptor antagonists, containing 4,101 patients, were identified. These were superior to placebo for the treatment of OIC (RR of failure to respond to therapy=0.69; 95% CI 0.63-0.75). Methylnaltrexone (six RCTs, 1,610 patients, RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.54-0.84), naloxone (four trials, 798 patients, RR=0.64; 95% CI 0.56-0.72), and alvimopan (four RCTs, 1,693 patients, RR=0.71; 95% CI 0.65-0.78) were all superior to placebo. Total numbers of adverse events, diarrhea, and abdominal pain were significantly commoner when data from all RCTs were pooled. Reversal of analgesia did not occur more frequently with active therapy. Only one trial of prucalopride was identified, with a nonsignificant trend toward higher responder rates with active therapy. Two RCTs of lubiprostone were found, with significantly higher responder rates with lubiprostone in both, but reporting of data precluded meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
μ-Opioid receptor antagonists are safe and effective for the treatment of OIC. More data are required before the role of prucalopride or lubiprostone in the treatment of OIC are clear.
Topics: Alprostadil; Analgesics, Opioid; Benzofurans; Constipation; Female; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Lubiprostone; Male; Naloxone; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Peptides; Piperidines; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Receptors, Opioid, mu
PubMed: 23752879
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2013.169