Pharmacological prevention and treatment of opioid-induced constipation in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 9.6 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
K.R.J. Kistemaker , F. Sijani , D.J. Brinkman , A. de Graeff , G.L. Burchell , M.A.H. Steegers , L. van Zuylen
{"title":"Pharmacological prevention and treatment of opioid-induced constipation in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"K.R.J. Kistemaker ,&nbsp;F. Sijani ,&nbsp;D.J. Brinkman ,&nbsp;A. de Graeff ,&nbsp;G.L. Burchell ,&nbsp;M.A.H. Steegers ,&nbsp;L. van Zuylen","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102704","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>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.</p><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty trials (prevention: five RCTs and three cohort studies; treatment: ten RCTs and two comparative cohort studies) were included in the review.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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<sup>2</sup> = 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<sup>2</sup> = 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<sup>2</sup> = 0 %; MNTX: RR 3.83, 95 % CI 2.81–5.22, I<sup>2</sup> = 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.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Magnesium oxide and naldemedine are most likely effective for prevention of OIC in cancer patients<strong>.</strong> 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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":9537,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment reviews","volume":"125 ","pages":"Article 102704"},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305737224000227/pdfft?md5=71786d5672fa6b4f1ee184e40fb33ac1&pid=1-s2.0-S0305737224000227-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer treatment reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305737224000227","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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; I2 = 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; I2 = 0 %). Naldemedine (NAL) and methylnaltrexone (MNTX) demonstrated significantly higher response rates compared to placebo (NAL: RR 2.07, 95 % CI 1.64–2.61, I2 = 0 %; MNTX: RR 3.83, 95 % CI 2.81–5.22, I2 = 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.

癌症患者阿片类药物引起的便秘的药物预防和治疗:系统回顾与荟萃分析
背景癌症相关疼痛通常需要阿片类药物治疗,而阿片类药物引起的便秘(OIC)是其最常见的胃肠道副作用。为预防和治疗 OIC,渗透剂(如聚乙二醇)和刺激剂(如比沙可啶)泻药被广泛使用。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在概述预防和治疗癌症患者 OIC 的药理策略的科学证据。方法在 PubMed、Embase、Web of Science 和 Cochrane 图书馆进行了系统检索,检索时间从开始至 2022 年 10 月 22 日。系统地选择了随机和非随机研究。结果 20 项试验(预防:5 项 RCT 和 3 项队列研究;治疗:10 项 RCT 和 2 项队列比较研究)被纳入综述。关于 OIC 的预防,3 项 RCT 比较了泻药和其他泻药,发现所用泻药的效果没有明显差异。一项队列研究显示,与不使用泻药相比,使用氧化镁有显著疗效。一项 RCT 研究发现,与氧化镁相比,PAMORA naldemedine 有明显的疗效。与羟考酮或芬太尼相比,预防性使用羟考酮/纳洛酮在其他三项研究中有两项未显示出明显差异。关于 OIC 的治疗,两项 RCT 比较了泻药,其中一项 RCT 发现聚乙二醇的疗效明显优于番泻苷。七项研究比较了阿片类拮抗剂(纳洛酮、甲纳曲酮或纳尔德丁)和安慰剂,三项研究比较了不同剂量的阿片类拮抗剂。与使用泻药的羟考酮相比,羟考酮/纳洛酮可显著改善肠道功能指数(MD -13.68; 95 % CI -18.38 to -8.98;I2 = 58 %)。两组的药物不良事件发生率相似,但羟考酮/纳洛酮的不良事件发生率较高(RR 0.51; 95 % CI 0.31-0.83; I2 = 0 %)。与安慰剂相比,纳尔代丁(NAL)和甲基纳曲酮(MNTX)的反应率明显更高(NAL:RR 2.07,95 % CI 1.64-2.61,I2 = 0 %;MNTX:RR 3.83,95 % CI 1.64-2.61,I2 = 0 %):RR 3.83,95 % CI 2.81-5.22,I2 = 0 %)。在不良反应方面,使用甲基纳曲酮治疗的患者腹痛较多,而使用纳尔代丁治疗的患者腹泻明显较多。不同剂量的甲基纳曲酮在疗效和药物不良事件发生率方面均无显著差异。纳洛酮与羟考酮、纳尔德丁和甲基纳曲酮的固定组合可有效治疗癌症患者的 OIC,且不良反应可接受。然而,它们的效果尚未与标准(渗透性和刺激性)泻药进行比较。在为临床实践提出建议之前,有必要进行更多的研究,对标准泻药与阿片类拮抗剂进行比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cancer treatment reviews
Cancer treatment reviews 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
21.40
自引率
0.80%
发文量
109
审稿时长
13 days
期刊介绍: Cancer Treatment Reviews Journal Overview: International journal focused on developments in cancer treatment research Publishes state-of-the-art, authoritative reviews to keep clinicians and researchers informed Regular Sections in Each Issue: Comments on Controversy Tumor Reviews Anti-tumor Treatments New Drugs Complications of Treatment General and Supportive Care Laboratory/Clinic Interface Submission and Editorial System: Online submission and editorial system for Cancer Treatment Reviews
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信