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 , F. Sijani , D.J. Brinkman , A. de Graeff , G.L. Burchell , M.A.H. Steegers , 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.
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