naloxone and Intestinal-Diseases

Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is characterised by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and gastric reflux. It is one of the major adverse events of treatment for pain in cancer and in palliative care, resulting in increased morbidity and reduced quality of life.This is an update of two Cochrane reviews. One was published in 2011, Issue 1 on laxatives and methylnaltrexone for the management of constipation in people receiving palliative care; this was updated in 2015 and excluded methylnaltrexone. The other was published in 2008, Issue 4 on mu-opioid antagonists (MOA) for OIBD. In this updated review, we only included trials on MOA (including methylnaltrexone) for OIBD in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care.. To assess the effectiveness and safety of MOA for OIBD in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care.. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science to August 2017. We also searched clinical trial registries and regulatory websites. We contacted manufacturers of MOA to identify further data.. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness and safety of MOA for OIBD in people with cancer and people at a palliative stage irrespective of the type of terminal disease they experienced.. Two review authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The appropriateness of combining data from the trials depended upon sufficient homogeneity across the trials. Our primary outcomes were laxation, impact on pain relief, and adverse events. Impact on pain relief was a primary outcome because a possible adverse effect of MOAs is a reduction in pain relief from opioids. We assessed the evidence on these outcomes using GRADE.. We identified four new trials for this update, bringing the total number included in this review to eight. In total, 1022 men and women with cancer irrespective of stage or at a palliative care stage of any disease were randomised across the trials. The MOAs evaluated were oral naldemedine and naloxone (alone or in combination with oxycodone), and subcutaneous methylnaltrexone. The trials compared with MOA with a placebo or with the active intervention administered at different doses or in combination with other drugs. The trial of naldemedine and the two of naloxone in combination with oxycodone were in people with cancer irrespective of disease stage. The trial on naloxone alone was in people with advanced cancer. The four trials on methylnaltrexone were undertaken in palliative care where most participants had cancer. All trials were vulnerable to biases; four were at a high risk as they involved a sample of fewer than 50 participants per arm.In the trial of naldemedine compared to placebo in 225 participants, there were more spontaneous laxations over the two-week treatment for the intervention group (risk ratio (RR) 1.93, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.36 to 2.74; moderate-quality evidence). In comparison with higher doses, lower doses resulted in fewer spontaneous laxations (0.1 mg versus 0.2 mg: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.95; 0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence). There was moderate-quality evidence that naldemedine had no effect on opiate withdrawal. There were five serious adverse events. All were in people taking naldemedine (low-quality evidence). There was an increase in the occurrence of other (non-serious) adverse events in the naldemedine groups (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.79, moderate-quality evidence). The most common adverse event was diarrhoea.The trials on naloxone taken either on its own, or in combination with oxycodone (an opioid) compared to oxycodone only did not evaluate laxation response over the first two weeks of administration. There was very low-quality evidence that naloxone alone, and moderate-quality evidence that oxycodone/naloxone, had no effect on analgesia. There was low-quality evidence that oxycodone/naloxone did not increase the risk of serious adverse events and moderate-quality evidence that it did not increase risk of adverse events.In combined analysis of two trials of 287 participants, we found methylnaltrexone compared to placebo induced more laxations within 24 hours (. In this update, the conclusions for naldemedine are new. There is moderate-quality evidence to suggest that, taken orally, naldemedine improves bowel function over two weeks in people with cancer and OIBD but increases the risk of adverse events. The conclusions on naloxone and methylnaltrexone have not changed. The trials on naloxone did not assess laxation at 24 hours or over two weeks. There is moderate-quality evidence that methylnaltrexone improves bowel function in people receiving palliative care in the short term and over two weeks, and low-quality evidence that it does not increase adverse events. There is a need for more trials including more evaluation of adverse events. None of the current trials evaluated effects in children.

Topics: Constipation; Defecation; Female; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Intestinal Diseases; Male; Nalbuphine; Naloxone; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Neoplasms; Opioid-Related Disorders; Oxycodone; Palliative Care; Piperidines; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Opioid, mu

Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OBD) is characterized by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and increased gastric reflux. OBD occurs both acutely and chronically, in multiple disease states, resulting in increased morbidity and reduced quality of life.. To compare the efficacy and safety of traditional and peripherally active opioid antagonists versus conventional interventions for OBD.. We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE in January 2007. Additional reports were identified from the reference lists of retrieved papers.. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials that investigated the efficacy of mu-opioid antagonists for OBD.. Data were extracted by two independent review authors and included demographic variables, diagnoses, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events.. Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria and provided data on 2871 opioid antagonist-treated patients. The opioid antagonists investigated were alvimopan (nine studies), methylnaltrexone (six), naloxone (seven), and nalbuphine (one). Meta-analysis demonstrated that methylnaltrexone and alvimopan were better than placebo in reversing opioid-induced increased gastrointestinal transit time and constipation, and that alvimopan appears to be safe and efficacious in treating postoperative ileus. The incidence of adverse events with opioid antagonists was similar to placebo and generally reported as mild-to-moderate.. Insufficient evidence exists for the safety or efficacy of naloxone or nalbuphine in the treatment of OBD. Long-term efficacy and safety of any of the opioid antagonists is unknown, as is the incidence or nature of rare adverse events. Alvimopan and methylnaltrexone both show promise in treating OBD, but further data will be required to fully assess their place in therapy.

Topics: Constipation; Defecation; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Intestinal Diseases; Nalbuphine; Naloxone; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Opioid-Related Disorders; Piperidines; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Receptors, Opioid, mu

This study investigated the protective effects of ischemic preconditioning on intestinal ischemic injury and the role of endogenous opioid peptides (EOP) in these effects. Ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) induced by 30-min of ischemia and 60-min of reperfusion significantly increased the levels of malondialdehyde (MDA) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and resulted in serious intestinal edema (wet weight/dry weight). The ischemic preconditioning (PC) elicited by three 8-min occlusion periods interspersed with 10-min reperfusion markedly attenuated intestinal injury caused by ischemia-reperfusion. Pretreatment with morphine (300 microg x kg(-1), i.v.) 10-min before ischemia and reperfusion mimicked the protection produced by PC. Naloxone (3 mg x kg(-1), i.v.) abolished the protection of morphine-induced preconditioning and ischemic preconditioning in rat intestine. However, there were no changes between naloxone alone and control groups. Treatment with naloxone before ischemia-reperfusion had no effect on animals compared with the I/R group. In addition, we also measured the content of endogenous opioid peptides (Leu-enkephalin) in the effluent which was collected before and during preconditioning. It was shown that the release of leu-enkephalin was markedly increased during preconditioning. These results suggested that EOP might play an important role in PC in rat small intestine.

Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Animals; Drug Interactions; Edema; Enkephalin, Leucine; Intestinal Diseases; Intestinal Mucosa; Intestine, Small; Ischemia; Ischemic Preconditioning; L-Lactate Dehydrogenase; Male; Malondialdehyde; Morphine; Naloxone; Narcotic Antagonists; Opioid Peptides; Rats; Rats, Wistar; Receptors, Opioid; Reperfusion Injury

Structure-activity relationship studies were pursued within N-substituted-trans-3,4-dimethyl-4-(3-hydroxyphenyl)piperidines in an effort to discover a peripherally selective opioid antagonist with high activity following systemic administration. Altering the size and the polarity of the N-substituent led to the discovery of 3 (LY246736). Compound 3 has high affinity for opioid receptors (Ki = 0.77, 40, and 4.4 nM for mu, kappa, and delta receptors, respectively). It is a potent mu receptor antagonist following parenteral and oral administration and distributes selectively (> 200-fold selectivity) to peripheral receptors. Thus, 3 has properties suitable for the clinical investigation of mu opioid receptor involvement in GI motility disorders.

Topics: Animals; Diarrhea; Gastrointestinal Motility; Guinea Pigs; In Vitro Techniques; Intestinal Diseases; Male; Mice; Piperidines; Radioligand Assay; Receptors, Opioid, mu; Structure-Activity Relationship

The liver metabolic response of rats following a standardized intestinal shock, induced by applying a pressure of 120 cm water on the mesenteric vessels for 60 min, was studied. Immediately prior to the release of the pressure on the vessels saline or naloxone was given either as a single injection or as a continuous infusion. After the reperfusion of the intestine no early disturbances in liver metabolism were found as evidenced from the ATP, glucose and lactate levels in liver biopsies taken 15 min following reflow. Within 60 min of reflow reduction of ATP and increases of glucose and lactate levels occurred. There were no major hemodynamic or liver metabolic differences between saline- and naloxone-treated shocked rats. When saline or naloxone was given as a continuous infusion, the changes in liver metabolism were, however, less severe than those observed in the single injection situation pointing toward a non-specific effect of volume replacement rather than a blockade of opioid receptors. Hepatic hypoxia and/or cellular effects of "shock factors" could be mechanisms of pathophysiologic importance for the disturbed liver metabolism in this shock model.

Topics: Acid-Base Equilibrium; Adenosine Triphosphate; Animals; Blood Glucose; Blood Pressure; Carbon Dioxide; Female; Hematocrit; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration; Intestinal Diseases; Intestinal Mucosa; Lactates; Liver; Male; Naloxone; Rats; Rats, Inbred Strains; Shock

Naloxone, an opiate antagonist, was reported to protect against stress ulcers in dogs and rats. We studied its possible protective effect against indomethacin-induced intestinal ulceration in the rat. Naloxone was indeed found to possess a marked protective effect on the intestinal mucosa (ulcer index 73.3 +/- 13.6 vs. 273.8 +/- 21.8, p less than 0.001). Naloxone was found to elevate basal intestinal mucosal prostaglandin E2 (p less than 0.001) and cyclic adenosine monophosphate levels (p less than 0.005) but was unable to overcome the inhibition of prostaglandin E2 caused by indomethacin. An increase of cyclic adenosine monophosphate levels was seen, however, even in the presence of indomethacin, suggesting that cyclic adenosine monophosphate, but not prostaglandins, may play a role in the protective effect of naloxone.

Topics: Animals; Cimetidine; Cyclic AMP; Dinoprostone; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Indomethacin; Intestinal Diseases; Male; Naloxone; Prostaglandins E; Rats; Rats, Inbred Strains; Time Factors; Ulcer