1.
Efficacy of Treatments for Opioid-Induced Constipation: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Nee, J, Zakari, M, Sugarman, MA, Whelan, J, Hirsch, W, Sultan, S, Ballou, S, Iturrino, J, Lembo, A
Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association. 2018;(10):1569-1584.e2
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.
2.
Long-term safety of MorphiDex.
Goldblum, R
Journal of pain and symptom management. 2000;(1 Suppl):S50-6
Abstract
More than 2200 subjects were enrolled in the MorphiDex (MS:DM) development program, with a 1:1 (weight:weight) ratio of morphine sulfate (MS) to dextromethorphan hydrobromide (DM). Of the 1400 subjects exposed to MorphiDex, more than 350 subjects were treated for at least 6 months, and over 200 subjects were treated for a year or longer. The clinical population comprised an approximately equal number of men (46.2%) and women (53.8%), ranging in age from 16 to 96 years, and mostly Caucasian (91.8%). The most frequent (54.8%) daily dose of MorphiDex for subjects enrolled in the clinical program was 120 mg or less. Slow DM metabolizers took significantly lower daily doses of MorphiDex than rapid metabolizers without a significant difference in the incidence of adverse events. Plasma bromide concentrations were low and showed a wide margin of safety for both slow and rapid DM metabolizers. There were no clinically significant treatment-related changes in clinical laboratory tests, neurological examinations, or vital signs. The most common adverse events seen in the multiple dose controlled studies were nausea, dizziness, vomiting, somnolence, constipation, confusion, asthenia, headache, and pruritus. With long-term treatment, the prevalence of adverse events was greatest during the first month of MorphiDex exposure and then decreased over time. The incidence of constipation remained fairly constant over time.
3.
Single-dose ketorolac and pethidine in acute postoperative pain: systematic review with meta-analysis.
Smith, LA, Carroll, D, Edwards, JE, Moore, RA, McQuay, HJ
British journal of anaesthesia. 2000;(1):48-58
Abstract
For a systematic review of postoperative analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single doses, injected or oral, of pethidine and ketorolac compared with placebo, we sought published randomized studies in moderate to severe postoperative pain. Information on summed pain intensity or pain relief outcomes over 4-6 h was extracted and converted to dichotomous information to produce the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief. This was used to calculate the relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for one patient to achieve at least 50% pain relief. Minor and major adverse effect data were extracted and summarized. For pethidine 100 mg i.m., eight randomized, controlled studies met the inclusion criteria, with 203 patients given pethidine and 161 placebo. The NNT to produce at least 50% pain relief was 2.9 (95% confidence interval 2.3-3.9). At this dose, pethidine produced significantly more drowsiness and dizziness than placebo, with numbers-needed-to-harm (NNH) of 2.9 (2.2-4.4) and 7.2 (4.8-14), respectively. For ketorolac, 14 reports met the inclusion criteria (six i.m. and eight oral). Most i.m. information (176 patients) was available for the 30 mg dose, which had an NNT of 3.4 (2.5-4.9). Most oral information was available for the 10 mg dose, which had an NNT of 2.6 (2.3-3.1). Oral ketorolac 10 mg was consistently at least as effective as ketorolac 30 mg i.m. Only with oral ketorolac 10 mg were there significantly more adverse effects than with placebo, with an NNH for any adverse effect of 7.3 (4.7-17).