Search

• Opioid-induced constipation is a common concern among patients taking prescription opioid medications after orthopedic injury. • In this secondary analysis, the majority of participants reported experiencing opioid-induced constipation symptoms and 7% reported moderate to severe symptoms. • Opioid-induced constipation was associated with higher pain interference, lower physical function, and higher average pain. • Nurses are uniquely positioned to assess opioid-induced constipation and implement interventions to mitigate symptoms linked to worsening patient-reported outcomes, such as pain and physical function. Opioid-induced constipation is an adverse effect often experienced among patients taking prescription opioid medication. Despite frequent opioid prescribing after orthopedic injury, there is a dearth of research examining opioid-induced constipation presentations in this population. This analysis examines the frequency of opioid-induced constipation manifestations and association with patient-reported outcomes among participants prescribed opioid medication following orthopedic injury. Secondary analysis of 86 clinical trial participants following orthopedic trauma. Participants were assessed 2-weeks postoperatively with the following measures: Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference, PROMIS Physical Function, past 24-hour average pain intensity captured on the numeric pain rating scale, and the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) questionnaire. Linear regressions examined the association between PAC-SYM scores and both pain intensity and PROMIS T-scores while accounting for injury severity and opioid medication dosage. Most participants (69%) reported experiencing opioid-induced constipation symptoms and 7% reported moderate to severe symptoms. Compared to those without symptoms, participants reporting opioid-induced constipation symptoms were found to have a 3-point increase in PROMIS Pain Interference (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.28-5.90; p =.032), a 3-point decline in PROMIS Physical Function (95% CI: -6.57 to -0.02; p =.049), and a 1.7-point increase in average pain scores (95% CI: 0.50-3.01; p =.007) at 2-weeks following surgery. Opioid-induced constipation symptoms are common after orthopedic trauma and linked to increased pain interference and pain intensity as well as reduced physical function. Nurse-led assessments of opioid-induced constipation can support the timely delivery of interventions to alleviate symptoms and potentially improve patient-reported outcomes after injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a very common and troublesome gastrointestinal side effect following the use of opioids. Despite existing international guidelines, OIC is largely underdiagnosed and undertreated. ECHO OIC is a European project designed to improve the diagnosis and management of OIC at the primary care level. The next phase of the ECHO OIC project is to review and adapt the proposed European pathway at national level, considering the local patient journey and clinical practice. A multidisciplinary group of 12 Italian experts reviewed and discussed the European path and formulated a seven-step guide for the practical management of OIC that is also easily applicable in primary care: 1. When prescribing long-term opioids, the physician should inform the patient of the possibility of the onset of OIC; 2. At opioid prescription, doctors should also prescribe a treatment for constipation, preferably macrogol or stimulant laxatives; 3. The patient should be evaluated for OIC within the second week of initiating opioid treatment, by clinical history and Rome IV criteria; 4. In the presence of constipation despite laxatives, prescription of a PAMORA (Peripherally Acting Mu Opioid Receptor Antagonist) should be considered; 5. When prescribing a PAMORA, prescribing information should be carefully reviewed, and patients should be accurately instructed for appropriate use; 6. Efficacy and tolerability of the PAMORA should be monitored regularly by Bowel Function Index, considering a cut-off of 30 for the possible step-up of OIC treatment; 7. After 4 weeks of treatment, if the efficacy of PAMORA is deemed inadequate, discontinuation of the PAMORA, addition of an anti-constipation drugs, change of opioid type, or referral to a specialist should be considered. Spreading knowledge about the OIC problem as much as possible to the health community is crucial to obtain not only an early treatment of the condition but also to promote its prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tramadol is a weak opioid used to treat moderate pain. Stronger opioids inhibit gastrointestinal function, but little is known about the gastrointestinal effects of tramadol. Our aim was to investigate if tramadol causes opioid‐induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD). Twenty healthy male participants (mean age 24 [range 20–31] years) were included. Tramadol (extended‐release formulation, 200 mg/day) or placebo was administered for 10 days in two study periods separated by 3 weeks. Gastrointestinal transit times and segmental volume, motility and water content were investigated with the 3D‐transit system and magnetic resonance imaging. Bowel movements and gastrointestinal symptoms were recorded daily. Tramadol prolonged colonic transit time (34 h vs. 25 h, p < 0.001) and increased small bowel motility (p < 0.01) and water content (p = 0.002) compared to placebo. Across all days of treatment, tramadol reduced the number of mean daily bowel movements (p = 0.001) and increased mean stool consistency (p = 0.006). Gastrointestinal symptom scores increased with tramadol (indigestion: +358%, p = 0.01; constipation: +475%, p = 0.01). Additionally, more participants fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for constipation after tramadol treatment compared to placebo (40% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). This study showed that tramadol treatment is associated with OIBD, and management of constipation and other bowel symptoms should, therefore, be prioritised when treating pain patients with tramadol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Naldemedine, a peripherally acting opioid μ receptor antagonist, is effective for prevention of opioid-induced constipation (OIC); however, evidence on its use in children is limited. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of naldemedine in pediatric patients with OIC. Design, Setting/Subjects: Retrospective analysis of 32 pediatric patients with OIC treated with naldemedine in a single institution in Japan from June 2017 to March 2021. Measurements: Efficacy was evaluated in 13 evaluable patients with bowel movement (BM) response, defined as those with at least three BMs in the first 7 days after naldemedine initiation and an increase of at least one BM from baseline. Safety was evaluated by examining adverse events (AEs) based on the Common Terminology Criteria for AEs (v5.0). Results: BM response was recorded in 11 of the 13 patients (85%), and the number BMs per day significantly increased from 0.43 before naldemedine to 1.00 after naldemedine (p = 0.025). The most common AE was diarrhea, observed in 16 of the 32 patients (50%), and all instances were grade 1 or 2. In three of the 16 patients, naldemedine was discontinued owing to worsening diarrhea. Conclusions: In pediatric patients, naldemedine resulted in a high rate of BM response and increased the BM frequency, indicating its efficacy. In some patients, grade 2 diarrhea required naldemedine discontinuation, suggesting that it should be used with caution in pediatric patients. Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal naldemedine dose in pediatric patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The objectives of the study were to determine the prevalence of (uncontrolled) OIC, relevant medications / interventions employed by healthcare professionals, and the additional strategies utilised by patients, amongst European patients with cancer pain. Methods: This study was a prospective observational study conducted at 24 research sites in ten European countries. Cancer patients receiving opioid analgesics for at least a week were recruited, and asked to complete a questionnaire including background information, single question (Are you constipated?), Rome IV diagnostic criteria for OIC, Bowel Function Index (BFI), and Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life questionnaire (PAC-QOL). Participants were characterised as having / not having OIC on the basis of the Rome IV diagnostic criteria. Results: 1200 participants completed the study. 59.5% met the Rome IV diagnostic criteria for OIC: only 61.5% that met these criteria self-reported constipation. 72% participants were prescribed a regular conventional laxative / peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonist (PAMORA). However, only 66% took their prescribed laxatives every day. Many participants had utilised other strategies / interventions to manage their OIC. Furthermore, 27% had needed to use suppositories, 26.5% had needed to use an enema, and 8% had had a manual evacuation. The use of PAMORAs, and other novel effective medications, was relatively uncommon. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that management in Europe is often inadequate, and this undoubtedly relates to a combination of inadequate assessment, inappropriate treatment, and inadequate reassessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The rise in opioid use for managing chronic and oncologic pain has led to a significant increase in opioid-induced constipation (OIC) that impacts patient quality of life and pain management. Areas covered: In this study, emerging therapies for OIC were criticized for refining advancements and novel treatment options. Key topics included the efficacy of peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) such as methylnaltrexone, naloxegol, and naldemedine, which specifically target opioid-induced gut dysfunction. Other treatment options, including intestinal secretagogues like lubiprostone and linaclotide, selective 5-HT receptor agonists such as prucalopride, and emerging adjunctive therapies like transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and electroacupuncture were mentioned. Current guidelines from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and the European consensus were criticized. Expert opinion: Experts stress the importance of a stepwise approach to managing OIC, considering patient-specific factors and the efficacy of various treatments. While PAMORAs have demonstrated effectiveness in improving bowel function, their high cost and lack of extensive head-to-head comparisons with traditional laxatives are significant concerns. Emerging therapies and adjunctive treatments offer promising results but require further validation through rigorous studies. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness to better address the complex needs of patients with OIC and refine treatment protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is the most prevalent side effect of methadone maintenance therapy (MMT). Naloxone could reduce the OIC. Method: Fifty-six MMT cases (< 75 mg/day methadone, > 3 months) were entered randomly into four groups of a trial. They received placebo or naloxone tablets (0.5, 2, or 4 mg/day) once a day for 2 weeks. They continued their conventional laxative. Their constipation and opiate withdrawal (OWS) were evaluated by the Bristol Stool Form Scale (stool consistency and frequency), Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) questionnaire, Constipation Scoring System (CSS), and the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale (SOWS) before starting treatment and at the end of the first and second weeks. Results: The dose of 4 mg/day naloxone was excluded from the study due to severe OWS. The precipitants of groups had similar ages, methadone dose and duration, laxative use, and constipation scores at the start of the trial. However, 2 mg of naloxone could change the stool consistency (PV = 0.0052) and frequency (P = 0.0133), 0.5 mg/day dose only improved the stool consistency (P = 0.0016). The patients' CSS and PAC-SYM scores were reduced by naloxone after the 1st week of treatment. However, there was no significant difference in the mean score of SOWS at different assessment times and groups. Also, 3 and 4 cases of 0.5 and 2 mg/day groups, respectively, withdrew from the study due to OWS. Conclusion: Oral naloxone at doses of 0.5 and 2 mg/day was significantly more effective than placebo on OIC in MMT. However, the dose of 4 mg induced intolerable OWS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Constipation impacts 58% to 83% of critically ill patients and is associated with increased time on mechanical ventilation, delirium, and increased length of stay (LOS) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of enteral naloxegol (NGL) versus subcutaneous methylnaltrexone (MNTX) for the management of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in critically ill patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on adult patients admitted to the ICU who received a parenteral opioid infusion for at least 4 hours and experienced no bowel movement (BM) within the 48-hour period preceding the administration of NGL or MNTX. The primary outcome was time to first BM from the start of NGL or MNTX therapy. Secondary outcomes included number of BMs 72 hours following NGL or MNTX administration, ICU LOS, and cost-effectiveness. Results: After exclusion criteria were applied, 110 and 51 patients were included in the NGL and MNTX groups, respectively. With a 10% noninferiority margin, NGL was noninferior to MNTX (Wald statistic = 1.67; P = 0.047). Median time to first BM was 23.7 hours for NGL and 18.3 hours for MNTX patients. Median LOS was 14 days (NGL) and 12 days (MNTX), and the average number of BMs in 72 hours was 3.9 for NGL and 3.8 for MNTX. Using wholesale acquisition cost (WAC), the cost per BM for NGL and MNTX was $21.74 and $170.00, respectively. Conclusion and relevance: This study determined that NGL and MNTX had similar time to BM. NGL appears to be a safe and effective alternative with cost-saving potential in treating OIC in critically ill patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Objectives: Clinical responses to naldemedine vary between individuals with advanced cancer. This is a prospective, single‐center, observational study aimed to evaluate the influence of genetic polymorphisms and cachexia status on plasma naldemedine and clinical responses. Methods: Forty‐eight patients being treated with naldemedine for opioid‐induced constipation under treatment of cancer pain were enrolled. Plasma naldemedine concentrations were determined on the fourth day or later after administration of naldemedine, and the associations with genotypes, cachexia status, and clinical responses were assessed. Results: Cancer patients exhibited a large variation in the plasma naldemedine concentrations, and it was correlated with serum total protein level. Patients who were homozygous CYP3A5*3 had a higher plasma concentration of naldemedine than those with the *1 allele. ABCB1 genotypes tested in this study were not associated with plasma naldemedine. A negative correlation was observed between the plasma naldemedine concentration and 4β‐hydroxycholesterol level. The plasma naldemedine concentration was lower in patients with refractory cachexia than in those with precachexia and cachexia. While serum levels of interleukin‐6 (IL‐6) and acute‐phase proteins were higher in patients with refractory cachexia, they were not associated with plasma naldemedine. A higher plasma concentration of naldemedine, CYP3A5*3/*3, and an earlier naldemedine administration after starting opioid analgesics were related to improvement of bowel movements. Conclusion: Plasma naldemedine increased under deficient activity of CYP3A5 in cancer patients. Cachectic patients with a higher serum IL‐6 had a lower plasma naldemedine. Plasma naldemedine, related to CYP3A5 genotype, and the initiation timing of naldemedine were associated with improved bowel movements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Constipation is a distressing symptom that has a high prevalence in patients receiving hospice and palliative care services, particularly in cases of opioid use. A thorough assessment, root cause analysis, monitoring, and prophylactic approach are essential for symptom management and quality of life. This rapid review assessed studies published between 2018 and 2023 to identify strategies implemented by health care professionals to prevent and/or mitigate this distressing symptom. We identified 12 articles that addressed constipation in palliative and end-of-life settings and reported on the need for multifactorial management approaches with a focus on patient-centered care that includes the caregiver(s). Bedside nurses play a key role in assessing, identifying, and managing constipation. Proper documentation and communication with the interdisciplinary team help direct earlier intervention and ongoing awareness of constipation issues. Additional research is needed on specific tools and enhanced guidelines to ensure constipation is frequently addressed and preemptively managed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES Constipation is a common adverse event of opioid use that is often difficult to treat. Methylnaltrexone is a therapeutic option for opioid-induced constipation (OIC) approved for oral and subcutaneous use in adults. These administration routes are not always feasible in the pediatric population. The primary objective of this research was to quantify the response rate of methylnaltrexone in pediatric patients when it was administered via the intravenous (IV) route. METHODS This retrospective study evaluated patients ages <18 years who received IV methylnaltrexone between January 1, 2013, and June 30, 2020, for OIC. Efficacy was evaluated through documentation of bowel evacuation within 4 hours of methylnaltrexone administration. Adverse events observed within 24 hours of administration were attributed to methylnaltrexone. RESULTS Methylnaltrexone was administered to 134 unique patients during the study period. Of these, 46 met exclusion criteria, resulting in 88 patients being included in the study. Patients with an underlying hematology/oncology diagnosis consisted of 77% of the study population, and 23% of patients had an underlying medical/surgical diagnosis. The response rate to IV methylnaltrexone was 25% (CI, 16-34). CONCLUSIONS The results of this retrospective chart review demonstrate the potential role of IV methylnaltrexone in the pediatric population. Despite the overall lower response rate relative to that reported in adults, IV methylnaltrexone possesses a unique mechanism of action that may serve as an alternative treatment option for patients unable to use the oral and subcutaneous administration routes. There were no significant adverse events seen in the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI) is a major complication of colorectal surgery. Increased opioid consumption has been proposed to increase the risk of PPOI. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that an increased total postoperative opioid dose (TPOD) is associated with the increased incidence of PPOI. Methods For this matched case-control study, patients who underwent elective laparoscopic colorectal procedures at the Peking University People’s Hospital between January 2018 and June 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with PPOI were assigned to the ileus group, while patients without PPOI (control group) were matched at a 1:1 ratio to the ileus group according to age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score, and type of surgical procedure. The primary outcome was the TPOD between the ileus and control groups. The secondary outcome was risk factors of PPOI. Results A total of 267 participants were included in the final analysis. No differences in baseline or operative factors were found between the two groups. The TPOD, intravenous sufentanil dose on postoperative day 1 (POD1), and the use of patient-controlled analgesia with basal infusion were associated with PPOI (P < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that an increased TPOD was an independent risk factor for developing PPOI after laparoscopic colorectal procedures (Odd ratio: 1.67, 95% CI [1.03, 2.71], P = 0.04). Conclusions The TPOD is an independent risk factor for PPOI after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. We need to explore new strategies of postoperative analgesia to reduce the dosage of TPOD.

Background and Aim: Detailed clinical information regarding drug‐induced constipation (DIC) is limited. This study aimed to investigate the real‐world situation of DIC. Methods: This retrospective study used data from a Japanese claims database registered from 2014 to 2021. The constipation cohort included subjects with at least one record of treated constipation, while the non‐constipation cohort was selected through random stratified sampling method, to match the constipation cohort by gender. The study population and control with at least one history of a known causative drug (CD) were matched 1:1 using propensity scores. The proportion of potential DIC (pDIC), the timing of diagnosis for pDIC, and the proportion of prescriptions by drug class for both the CDs and the laxatives were calculated, while logistic regression analysis was performed to explore additional associated factors. Results: Of the 4 533 905 subjects, 178 852 were eligible in both the study population and the control. The pDIC group comprised of 19 485 patients, which accounted for 10.9% of all treated constipation subjects, while the non‐constipation with CD group had 10 430 subjects. The median duration between the recorded CD prescription and treated constipation was 38.0 days. The most frequently prescribed CD was cardiovascular drugs (47.9%). All CD classes, being male, and some comorbidities were associated with the occurrence of pDIC. Conclusion: The pDIC subjects accounted for about 11% of all treated constipation cases. Since DIC requires different treatment regimens compared to other constipation types, physicians should be cognizant to provide patients with optimized treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Peripherally acting μ -opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) are used in the treatment of opioid induced constipation without impacting the actions of opioid analgesics. Subcutaneous methylnaltrexone was one of the first PAMORAs approved in April 2008 for the treatment of opioid induced constipation in adult patients. The safety and effectiveness of methylnaltrexone has not been established in pediatric patients. In this study, the use of subcutaneous methylnaltrexone in pediatric patients is analyzed and reviewed. The primary outcome is occurrence of a bowel movement within 24 h after methylnaltrexone (MNTX) administration and the number of bowel movements following treatment with methylnaltrexone. Secondary outcomes include safety in this patient cohort. Methods: This is a retrospective study of 79 pediatric patients with opioid induced constipation. Patients were administered methylnaltrexone during their inpatient stay. Data on bowel activity after methylnaltrexone was obtained from the hospital information system. Results: Out of the 79 patients who received methylnaltrexone, there were seven patients from whom data could not be analyzed. Of the 72 patients whose data was available, 38% (N = 27) were documented as having a bowel movement, 62% (N = 45) did not have a bowel movement. Reported adverse events were minimal with nausea (N = 3), vomiting (N = 1), and flatulence (N = 6). Conclusion: Methylnaltrexone appears safe in the pediatric population and produces bowel movements in more than a third of pediatric patients. It is a feasible and safe option for opioid induced constipation in pediatric patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic constipation, with a worldwide prevalence of 10-15%, is one of the most common gastrointestinal diagnoses in clinical practice and the most common reason for referrals to gastroenterologists and surgeons in Turkey. Although constipation is more common in women and the elderly, it can affect anyone regardless of race, age, or gender. It can cause significant health burden by negatively affecting the quality of life. Primary treatment is lifestyle changes, especially fiber dietary supplementation and exercise. Laxatives are used as the gold standard pharmacological treatment of chronic constipation. One of the effective nursing interventions used to treat chronic constipation is abdominal massage. The aim of this review is to briefly summarize the literature on the definition, classification, epidemiology, clinical symptoms and management of constipation. The relationship between constipation and abdominal massage was discussed in depth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Naloxegol has been shown to be an efficient alternative to treat opioid‐induced constipation (OIC). This study aimed at describing the characteristics of naloxegol users and assessing patterns of naloxegol use and associated factors. Methods: This drug utilization cohort study used observational registry data on patients newly prescribed naloxegol in four European countries. Patient characteristics and patterns of naloxegol use and associated factors were described. Results: A total of 17 254 naloxegol users were identified across the countries. Their median age was 56–71 years, and each country had a majority of women (ranging 57.5%–62.9%). Multiple comorbidities, including cancer, were common. Natural opium alkaloids and osmotically acting laxatives (excluding saline) were the most frequently used opioids and laxatives. Overall prior use of opioids ranged from 91.9% to 99.6% and overall prior use of laxatives ranged from 69.9% to 92.4%. Up to 77.7% had prior use of medications with interaction potential, and up to 44.5% used them concurrently with naloxegol. Naloxegol was discontinued by 55.1%–90.9% of users, typically during the first 30 days. Approximately 10%–30% switched to or augmented the treatment with another constipation medication or restarted naloxegol after discontinuation. Augmentation with another constipation medication was relatively common, suggesting that naloxegol was used for multifactorial constipation. Conclusion: The present study reflects real‐world clinical use of naloxegol, including in vulnerable patient groups. Some naloxegol users lacked laxative or regular opioid use within six months before index date or used naloxegol concomitantly with medications presenting an interaction potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neel Mehta,1,&ast; Neal E Slatkin,2,3,&ast; Robert J Israel,4,&ast; Nancy Stambler,5,&ast; Eric D Shah6,&ast; 1Department of Anesthesiology, Weill Cornell School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 2School of Medicine, University of California Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA; 3Medical Affairs, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Bridgewater, NJ, USA; 4Clinical and Medical Affairs, Bausch Health US LLC, Bridgewater, NJ, USA; 5Clinical Research, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, a Subsidiary of Lantheus Holdings Inc, North Billerica, MA, USA; 6Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA&ast;These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Eric D Shah, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan | Michigan Medicine, 300 N Ingalls Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA, Tel +1 877 285-7788, Email ershah@umich.eduPurpose: We evaluated the impact of baseline patient characteristics on safety and efficacy of methylnaltrexone, a peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonist, in patients with advanced illness with opioid-induced constipation (OIC).Patients and Methods: This analysis pooled data from 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (study 302: NCT00402038; study 4000: NCT00672477) in patients with advanced illness, including cancer, and OIC. Patients were randomized to receive subcutaneous methylnaltrexone (study 302: 0.15 mg/kg; study 4000: 8 or 12 mg based on weight) or placebo every other day for 2 weeks. The proportions of patients achieving rescue-free laxation within 4 or 24 hours after the first dose of study drug were assessed in patient subgroups stratified by baseline age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, cancer status, laxative type, and opioid requirement. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were evaluated.Results: Overall, 363 patients were included in this analysis (methylnaltrexone, 178; placebo, 185). Mean (SD) age was 66.3 (13.7) years and 48.5% were men overall. A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving methylnaltrexone versus placebo achieved rescue-free laxation within 4 hours (111/178 [62.4%] vs 31/185 [16.8%]; P< 0.0001) and 24 hours (135/178 [75.8%] vs 81/185 [43.8%]; P< 0.0001) of the first dose. These trends were consistent across all subgroups. Most patients experienced ≥ 1 TEAE in the overall population (methylnaltrexone, 82.1%; placebo, 76.2%), which remained consistent when stratified by baseline characteristics. More than half of TEAEs were gastrointestinal in nature. Abdominal pain was more common in patients receiving methylnaltrexone than placebo across baseline characteristic subgroups.Conclusion: Methylnaltrexone treatment was superior to placebo in achieving rescue-free laxation within 4 and 24 hours after the first dose, irrespective of patients’ cancer status, baseline ECOG performance status, or baseline opioid or laxative use. The methylnaltrexone safety profile remained consistent across baseline characteristic subgroups.Keywords: methylnaltrexone, opioid-induced constipation, μ-opioid receptor antagonist

William D Chey,1 Darren M Brenner,2 Brooks D Cash,3 Martin Hale,4 Jeremy Adler,5 Mansi S Jamindar,6 Carol B Rockett,6 June S Almenoff,6 Enoch Bortey,7 Jeffrey Gudin8 1Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 2Departments of Medicine and Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA; 3Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA; 4Gold Coast Research, L.L.C, Miami, FL, USA; 5Pacific Pain Medicine Consultants, Encinitas, CA, USA; 6Medical Affairs, RedHill Biopharma, Inc, Raleigh, NC, USA; 7Pharmaceutical Development Strategies, L.L.C, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; 8Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USACorrespondence: June S Almenoff, Email jalmenoff@redhillus.comObjective: This study evaluates the onset, magnitude, and consistency of improvement of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) symptoms with naloxegol treatment.Methods: This was a pooled analysis of two Phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies (KODIAC-04/05, NCT01309841/NCT01323790) in patients with chronic non-cancer pain and OIC treated with naloxegol 25mg or 12.5mg daily. This analysis assessed improvements in response rates, frequency of spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) and complete SBMs (CSBM), OIC constipation symptoms (straining, stool consistency), time to first post-dose SBM and CSBM, and onset of adverse events over the 12-week period.Subjects: The population of 1337 subjects had a mean age of 52 years and mean duration of opioid use of 3.6 years at baseline. Mean SBM frequency was 1.4/week.Results: Naloxegol 25mg and 12.5mg demonstrated significantly higher response rates vs placebo (PBO) [41.9% (P < 0.001), 37.8% (P = 0.008), 29.4% respectively]. Rapid (within 1 week) and sustained (over 12 weeks) symptom improvement was significantly greater for naloxegol vs PBO (P < 0.05). Both doses showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in straining, stool consistency, number of SBMs and CSBMs/wk. Significantly shorter times to first post-dose SBM and CSBM were observed with naloxegol vs PBO (SBM HR: 25mg = 1.90, 12.5mg= 1.60; CSBM HR: 25mg = 1.42, 12.5mg = 1.36; P < 0.001 for each regimen). Adverse events occurred more frequently in the naloxegol 25mg group and were most frequently reported during the first week.Conclusion: In patients with chronic non-cancer pain, naloxegol 25mg and 12.5mg demonstrated significantly higher response rates and rapid and sustained improvements in OIC symptoms compared with PBO.Keywords: opioid-induced constipation, naloxegol, clinical trials

Abstract Background and Aim Detailed clinical information regarding drug‐induced constipation (DIC) is limited. This study aimed to investigate the real‐world situation of DIC. Methods This retrospective study used data from a Japanese claims database registered from 2014 to 2021. The constipation cohort included subjects with at least one record of treated constipation, while the non‐constipation cohort was selected through random stratified sampling method, to match the constipation cohort by gender. The study population and control with at least one history of a known causative drug (CD) were matched 1:1 using propensity scores. The proportion of potential DIC (pDIC), the timing of diagnosis for pDIC, and the proportion of prescriptions by drug class for both the CDs and the laxatives were calculated, while logistic regression analysis was performed to explore additional associated factors. Results Of the 4 533 905 subjects, 178 852 were eligible in both the study population and the control. The pDIC group comprised of 19 485 patients, which accounted for 10.9% of all treated constipation subjects, while the non‐constipation with CD group had 10 430 subjects. The median duration between the recorded CD prescription and treated constipation was 38.0 days. The most frequently prescribed CD was cardiovascular drugs (47.9%). All CD classes, being male, and some comorbidities were associated with the occurrence of pDIC. Conclusion The pDIC subjects accounted for about 11% of all treated constipation cases. Since DIC requires different treatment regimens compared to other constipation types, physicians should be cognizant to provide patients with optimized treatments.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) and opioid-induced constipation (OIC) are disorders that negatively affect quality of life. We sought to assess the prevalence, symptom severity, and medication use among people with Rome IV CIC, OIC, and opioid-exacerbated constipation (OEC) using a nationally representative data set with nearly 89,000 people in the United States. METHODS: From May 3, 2020, to June 24, 2020, we recruited a representative sample of people in the United States ≥ 18 years to complete an online national health survey. The survey guided participants through the Rome IV CIC and OIC questionnaires, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System gastrointestinal scales (percentile 0-100; higher = more severe), and medication questions. Individuals with OEC were identified by asking those with OIC whether they experienced constipation before starting an opioid and whether their symptoms worsened afterward. RESULTS: Among the 88,607 participants, 5,334 (6.0%) had Rome IV CIC, and 1,548 (1.7%) and 335 (0.4%) had Rome IV OIC and OEC, respectively. When compared with people with CIC (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System score, 53.9 ± 26.5; reference), those with OIC (62.7 ± 28.0; adjusted P < 0.001) and OEC (61.1 ± 25.8, adjusted P = 0.048) had more severe constipation symptoms. People with OIC (odds ratio 2.72, 95% confidence interval 2.04-3.62) and OEC (odds ratio 3.52, 95% confidence interval 2.22-5.59) were also more likely to be taking a prescription medication for their constipation vs those with CIC. DISCUSSION: In this nationwide US survey, we found that Rome IV CIC is common (6.0%) while Rome IV OIC (1.7%) and OEC (0.4%) are less prevalent. Individuals with OIC and OEC have a higher burden of illness with respect to symptom severity and prescription constipation medication use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Treatment of chronic pain is among the primary tasks of palliative care. Among the most commonly prescribed analgesics are opioid agents. Opioids, in addition to being highly effective in controlling severe pain, have a high risk of adverse effects (AEs). The most common gastrointestinal AE is opioid-induced constipation (OIC). Methods: A search through online databases was conducted including Google Scholar and PubMed and key information on the pathophysiology, epidemiology, diagnosis and current therapeutic options for OIC has been collected. Results: The pathophysiology of OIC is primarily related to the direct action of opioids on opioid receptors located in the wall of the gastrointestinal tract. This leads to deregulation of the mechanisms responsible for the motor and secretory functions of the gastrointestinal tract. That results in impaired digestion and delayed intestinal transit, leading to the development of constipation. Opioid-induced constipation leads to a significant reduction in patients’ quality of life and an increase in the cost of treatment and can lead to serious complications such as gastrointestinal perforation. Patients receiving palliative care due to their multiple burdens require a holistic diagnostic approach and thorough differential diagnosis of OIC. Among therapeutic approaches, we distinguish between non-specific methods related to lifestyle changes and laxatives, and cause-directed pharmacological methods related to the use of peripherally acting opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORA). The most commonly used PAMORA for the treatment of OIC include naloxegol, methylnaltrexone and naldemedine. Numerous clinical studies demonstrate the efficacy and high safety profile of PAMORA in the treatment of OIC. Conclusions: Proper diagnosis of OIC among patients taking opioid drugs allows for the implementation of effective therapeutic measures. Appropriate treatment reduces the risk of OIC-related complications and leads to an increase in patients’ quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Constipation is frequently encountered in hospital settings and can have potentially serious consequences yet is often underrecognized and undertreated. Opioid-induced constipation is a common cause of constipation in hospitalized patients. Opioids induce constipation through agonistic effects on enteric µ-opioid receptors. This review aims to provide insight on the identification and management of constipation in inpatient settings, with a particular focus on opioid-induced constipation. Constipation assessment should be routinely initiated at hospital admission and can be facilitated by thorough symptom assessments; relevant patient history, including recent medication use; physical examination; and patient assessment tools developed to evaluate the impact of constipation. Management of opioid-induced constipation should begin with ensuring adequate hydration and electrolyte balance and encouraging patient mobilization. Other treatments may include laxatives, enemas, intestinal secretagogues, peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists, and manual disimpaction. Surgical intervention may be required for some patients as a salvage therapy in severe, refractory cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opioid-induced constipation remains undertreated despite effective and safe treatment options exists. Previous guidelines have only been partially effective in improving management, possibly due to their complexity, and studies suggest that a simple setup of concise and behaviorally-orientated steps improves usability. This article introduces the concept of opioid-induced constipation and provides an overview of existing guidelines in this field. We also propose simplified recommendations for managing opioid-induced constipation, derived from a synthesis of current guidelines and the principles of optimal guideline design theory. Despite standard treatment with laxatives and fluid intake in patients with opioid-induced constipation, escalation of treatment is often needed where μ-opioid receptor antagonists or newer medications such as lubiprostone, linaclotide, or prucalopride are used. Previous guidelines have not been used sufficiently and thus management of the condition is often insufficient. We therefore propose simplified recommendations to management, which we believe can come into broader use. It was validated in primary care for credibility, clarity, relevance, usability, and overall benefit. We believe that this initiative can lead to better management of the substantial proportion of patients suffering from side effects of opioids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is one of the most common side effects in patients with cancer treated with opioid analgesics. The actual use of laxatives for OIC in Japan remains unelucidated. This study aimed to investigate the real-world patterns of laxative use for patients with cancer who newly initiated opioid analgesic therapy. Methods We used a Japanese nationwide hospital claims database (January 2018–December 2019). Patients with cancer newly receiving opioid analgesic therapy were included and classified on the basis of opioid classes (weak or strong) and route of administration (oral or transdermal) at initiation. The patients were divided into two groups on the basis of whether they received early medication (starting laxatives within 3 days after initiating opioid analgesic therapy), and patterns of laxative use were analyzed. Results There were 26,939 eligible patients, with 50.7% of them initiated with strong opioids. The proportion of patients who received early medication was 25.0% for weak opioids and 57.3% for strong opioids. Osmotic laxatives were most frequently used as first-line therapy in the early medication group (oral weak opioids: 12.3%, oral strong opioids: 29.4%, transdermal strong opioids: 12.8%). Stimulant laxatives were frequently used as first-line therapy, to the same extent or more than osmotic laxatives in the non-early medication group (oral weak opioids: 13.7%, oral strong opioids: 7.7%, transdermal strong opioids: 15.1%). Peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists were the second most frequently used in the early medication group for those on oral strong opioids (9.4%). Conclusion This study demonstrated for the first time that the patterns of laxative use for OIC in Japanese patients with cancer were different, depending on the opioid types at initiation and the timing of laxative medication.

Introduction: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is one of the most common side effects in patients with cancer treated with opioid analgesics. The actual use of laxatives for OIC in Japan remains unelucidated. This study aimed to investigate the real-world patterns of laxative use for patients with cancer who newly initiated opioid analgesic therapy. Methods: We used a Japanese nationwide hospital claims database (January 2018–December 2019). Patients with cancer newly receiving opioid analgesic therapy were included and classified on the basis of opioid classes (weak or strong) and route of administration (oral or transdermal) at initiation. The patients were divided into two groups on the basis of whether they received early medication (starting laxatives within 3 days after initiating opioid analgesic therapy), and patterns of laxative use were analyzed. Results: There were 26,939 eligible patients, with 50.7% of them initiated with strong opioids. The proportion of patients who received early medication was 25.0% for weak opioids and 57.3% for strong opioids. Osmotic laxatives were most frequently used as first-line therapy in the early medication group (oral weak opioids: 12.3%, oral strong opioids: 29.4%, transdermal strong opioids: 12.8%). Stimulant laxatives were frequently used as first-line therapy, to the same extent or more than osmotic laxatives in the non-early medication group (oral weak opioids: 13.7%, oral strong opioids: 7.7%, transdermal strong opioids: 15.1%). Peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists were the second most frequently used in the early medication group for those on oral strong opioids (9.4%). Conclusion: This study demonstrated for the first time that the patterns of laxative use for OIC in Japanese patients with cancer were different, depending on the opioid types at initiation and the timing of laxative medication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opioid-induced constipation is a common problem in critically ill children requiring sedation. Naloxegol is an oral U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonist for chronic opioid-induced constipation use in adults, but data on its use in children are lacking. We performed a retrospective analysis of critically ill children that had received naloxegol for opioid-induced constipation at our institution. Of the 45 patients studied, mean stool frequency increased significantly from 0.63 ± 0.12 stools per day to 1.71 ± 0.13 stools per day after starting naloxegol (95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.75, 1.4], P <.001). There was no significant difference in the mean Withdrawal Assessment Tool 1 (WAT-1) score in the 24 hours before and after receiving the first dose (95% CI: [-0.25, 0.40], P =.63). This suggests naloxegol is effective in increasing stool output in critically ill children receiving opioids without an increase in opioid-withdrawal symptoms. It may be an effective adjunctive therapy for this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) may occur in up to 81% of critically ill patients and can lead to many complications. Opioid antagonists are a reasonable approach and may be used for managing OIC. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of enteral naloxone (NLX) versus subcutaneous methylnaltrexone (MNTX) for the management of OIC in critically ill patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on adult patients who received NLX or MNTX and a continuous opioid infusion for at least 48 hours. The primary end point was time to resolution of constipation, defined as hours to first bowel movement (BM) after the first dose of an opioid antagonist. Reversal of analgesia was assessed by comparing the total number of morphine milligram equivalents (MME) 24 hours preopioid and postopioid antagonist administration. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to assess treatment response within 48 hours. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between patients receiving NTX (n = 89) and MNTX (n = 71). However, the time to the first BM with NLX was 18 hours compared with 41 hours with MNTX (P = 0.004). There was no difference in MME requirements 24 hours pre/post NLX or MNTX administration. Naloxone administration was identified as a statistically significant predictor of BM within 48 hours (odds ratio [OR] = 2.68 [1.33-5.38]). Conclusion and Relevance: The time to first BM was shorter with enteral NLX. Both NLX and MNTX appear to be effective for the management of OIC without causing reversal of analgesia. Future controlled, prospective trials comparing these agents are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Eric D Shah,1 Bruce H Chamberlain,2 Michelle Rhiner,3 Neil E Slatkin,4,5 Nancy Stambler,6 Robert J Israel7 1Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA; 2Genesis Healthcare, Davenport, IA, USA; 3Department of Family Medicine, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, CA, USA; 4School of Medicine, University of California Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA; 5Medical Affairs, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Bridgewater, NJ, USA; 6Clinical Research, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., A Subsidiary of Lantheus Holdings, Inc, New York, NY, USA; 7Clinical and Medical Affairs, Bausch Health US, LLC, Bridgewater, NJ, USACorrespondence: Eric D Shah, Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, 1 Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH, 03766, USA, Tel +1 603-650-5261, Email eric.d.shah@hitchcock.orgPurpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) methylnaltrexone for opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in patients with and without active cancer.Patients and Methods: We analyzed two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 3/4 trials (NCT00402038, NCT00672477). Patients received SC methylnaltrexone (study 302, 0.15 mg/kg; study 4000, 8 mg or 12 mg based on body weight) or placebo every other day for 2 weeks. Patients were stratified by cancer status. Primary efficacy endpoints included proportion of patients achieving rescue-free laxation (RFL); secondary endpoints included time to RFL, pain intensity scores, and safety/tolerability. Trial results were evaluated separately.Results: The safety population (patients receiving ≥ 1 study drug dose) included 364 patients (study 302, n=134; study 4000, n=230). Study 302 had 78 patients with active cancer (methylnaltrexone, n=37; placebo, n=41) and 56 without cancer (methylnaltrexone, n=26; placebo, n=30); study 4000 had 152 patients with active cancer (methylnaltrexone, n=79; placebo, n=73) and 78 without cancer (methylnaltrexone, n=37; placebo, n=41). A significantly greater proportion of patients treated with methylnaltrexone achieved a laxation response within 4 hours after at least 2 of the first 4 doses versus placebo, dosed by body weight (cancer, 54.1% [methylnaltrexone] vs 7.3% [placebo], P< 0.0001; noncancer, 48.0% vs 10.0%; P< 0.005) or given as a weight-adjusted fixed dose (cancer, 59.5% vs 6.8%; noncancer, 70.3% vs 14.6%; P< 0.0001 each). With fixed-dose methylnaltrexone, average time to RFL for patients with and without cancer was < 1 hour of the first dose; with methylnaltrexone dosed by body weight, the first RFL occurred in < 4 and < 7 hours of treatment in patients with and without cancer, respectively. No significant differences were found in pain scores. SC methylnaltrexone was well tolerated at all doses in all patient cohorts.Conclusion: SC methylnaltrexone was efficacious in inducing rapid RFL and safe among patients with and without active cancer suffering from OIC.Keywords: methylnaltrexone, opioid-induced constipation, μ-opioid receptor antagonist, cancer, chronic pain