14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Definition, diagnosis and treatment strategies for opioid-induced bowel dysfunction–Recommendations of the Nordic Working Group

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and aims

          Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is an increasing problem due to the common use of opioids for pain worldwide. It manifests with different symptoms, such as dry mouth, gastro-oesophageal reflux, vomiting, bloating, abdominal pain, anorexia, hard stools, constipation and incomplete evacuation. Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is one of its many symptoms and probably the most prevalent. The current review describes the pathophysiology, clinical implications and treatment of OIBD.

          Methods

          The Nordic Working Group was formed to provide input for Scandinavian specialists in multiple, relevant areas. Seven main topics with associated statements were defined. The working plan provided a structured format for systematic reviews and included instructions on how to evaluate the level of evidence according to the GRADE guidelines. The quality of evidence supporting the different statements was rated as high, moderate or low. At a second meeting, the group discussed and voted on each section with recommendations (weak and strong) for the statements.

          Results

          The literature review supported the fact that opioid receptors are expressed throughout the gastrointestinal tract. When blocked by exogenous opioids, there are changes in motility, secretion and absorption of fluids, and sphincter function that are reflected in clinical symptoms. The group supported a recent consensus statement for OIC, which takes into account the change in bowel habits for at least one week rather than focusing on the frequency of bowel movements. Many patients with pain receive opioid therapy and concomitant constipation is associated with increased morbidity and utilization of healthcare resources. Opioid treatment for acute postoperative pain will prolong the postoperative ileus and should also be considered in this context. There are no available tools to assess OIBD, but many rating scales have been developed to assess constipation, and a few specifically address OIC. A clinical treatment strategy for OIBD/OIC was proposed and presented in a flowchart. First-line treatment of OIC is conventional laxatives, lifestyle changes, tapering the opioid dosage and alternative analgesics. Whilst opioid rotation may also improve symptoms, these remain unalleviated in a substantial proportion of patients. Should conventional treatment fail, mechanism-based treatment with opioid antagonists should be considered, and they show advantages over laxatives. It should not be overlooked that many reasons for constipation other than OIBD exist, which should be taken into consideration in the individual patient.

          Conclusion and implications

          It is the belief of this Nordic Working Group that increased awareness of adverse effects and OIBD, particularly OIC, will lead to better pain treatment in patients on opioid therapy. Subsequently, optimised therapy will improve quality of life and, from a socio-economic perspective, may also reduce costs associated with hospitalisation, sick leave and early retirement in these patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references105

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Opioids in chronic non-cancer pain: systematic review of efficacy and safety.

          Opioids are used increasingly for chronic non-cancer pain. Controversy exists about their effectiveness and safety with long-term use. We analysed available randomised, placebo-controlled trials of WHO step 3 opioids for efficacy and safety in chronic non-cancer pain. The Oxford Pain Relief Database (1950-1994) and Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched until September 2003. Inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of WHO step 3 opioids with placebo in chronic non-cancer pain. Double-blind studies reporting on pain intensity outcomes using validated pain scales were included. Fifteen randomised placebo-controlled trials were included. Four investigations with 120 patients studied intravenous opioid testing. Eleven studies (1025 patients) compared oral opioids with placebo for four days to eight weeks. Six of the 15 included trials had an open label follow-up of 6-24 months. The mean decrease in pain intensity in most studies was at least 30% with opioids and was comparable in neuropathic and musculoskeletal pain. About 80% of patients experienced at least one adverse event, with constipation (41%), nausea (32%) and somnolence (29%) being most common. Only 44% of 388 patients on open label treatments were still on opioids after therapy for between 7 and 24 months. The short-term efficacy of opioids was good in both neuropathic and musculoskeletal pain conditions. However, only a minority of patients in these studies went on to long-term management with opioids. The small number of selected patients and the short follow-ups do not allow conclusions concerning problems such as tolerance and addiction.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Impact of epidural analgesia on mortality and morbidity after surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

            To quantify benefit and harm of epidural analgesia, compared with systemic opioid analgesia, in adults having surgery under general anesthesia.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Two randomized trials of linaclotide for chronic constipation.

              Linaclotide is a minimally absorbed peptide agonist of the guanylate cyclase C receptor. In two trials, we aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of linaclotide in patients with chronic constipation. We conducted two randomized, 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, dual-dose trials (Trials 303 and 01) involving 1276 patients with chronic constipation. Patients received either placebo or linaclotide, 145 μg or 290 μg, once daily for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was three or more complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBMs) per week and an increase of one or more CSBMs from baseline during at least 9 of the 12 weeks. Adverse events were also monitored. For Trials 303 and 01, respectively, the primary end point was reached by 21.2% and 16.0% of the patients who received 145 μg of linaclotide and by 19.4% and 21.3% of the patients who received 290 μg of linaclotide, as compared with 3.3% and 6.0% of those who received placebo (P<0.01 for all comparisons of linaclotide with placebo). Improvements in all secondary end points were significantly greater in both linaclotide groups than in the placebo groups. The incidence of adverse events was similar among all study groups, with the exception of diarrhea, which led to discontinuation of treatment in 4.2% of patients in both linaclotide groups. In these two 12-week trials, linaclotide significantly reduced bowel and abdominal symptoms in patients with chronic constipation. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the potential long-term risks and benefits of linaclotide in chronic constipation. (Funded by Ironwood Pharmaceuticals and Forest Research Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00765882 and NCT00730015.).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Scandinavian Journal of Pain
                Elsevier BV
                1877-8860
                1877-8879
                April 01 2016
                April 01 2016
                : 11
                : 1
                : 111-122
                Article
                10.1016/j.sjpain.2015.12.005
                28850449
                ae9ac80c-4fd0-4d2e-b539-edd2dafc60db
                © 2016

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

                http://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article