Judy Nee1, Mohammed Zakari2, Michael A Sugarman3, Julia Whelan2, William Hirsch2, Shahnaz Sultan4, Sarah Ballou2, Johanna Iturrino2, Anthony Lembo2. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: jnee@bidmc.harvard.edu. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Neuropsychology, Bedford Veterans Administration Medical Center, Bedford, Massachusetts. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Minnesota and the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Minnesota, Minnesota.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Adam D Farmer; Asbjørn M Drewes; Giuseppe Chiarioni; Roberto De Giorgio; Tony O'Brien; Bart Morlion; Jan Tack Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2018-12-14 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Kevin Lee; Helen E Vuong; David J Nusbaum; Elaine Y Hsiao; Christopher J Evans; Anna M W Taylor Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Andrew Davies; Charlotte Leach; Ricardo Caponero; Andrew Dickman; David Fuchs; Judith Paice; Anton Emmanuel Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 3.603