4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Methylnaltrexone for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation and gastrointestinal stasis in intensive care patients. Results from the MOTION trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          Purpose

          Constipation can be a significant problem in critically unwell patients, associated with detrimental outcomes. Opioids are thought to contribute to the mechanism of bowel dysfunction. We tested if methylnaltrexone, a pure peripheral mu-opioid receptor antagonist, could reverse opioid-induced constipation.

          Methods

          The MOTION trial is a multi-centre, double blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial to investigate whether methylnaltrexone alleviates opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in critical care patients. Eligibility criteria included adult ICU patients who were mechanically ventilated, receiving opioids and were constipated (had not opened bowels for a minimum 48 h) despite prior administration of regular laxatives as per local bowel management protocol. The primary outcome was time to significant rescue-free laxation. Secondary outcomes included gastric residual volume, tolerance of enteral feeds, requirement for rescue laxatives, requirement for prokinetics, average number of bowel movements per day, escalation of opioid dose due to antagonism/reversal of analgesia, incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia, incidence of diarrhoea and Clostridium difficile infection and finally 28 day, ICU and hospital mortality.

          Results

          A total of 84 patients were enrolled and randomized (41 to methylnaltrexone and 43 to placebo). The baseline demographic characteristics of the two groups were generally well balanced. There was no significant difference in time to rescue-free laxation between the groups (Hazard ratio 1.42, 95% CI 0.82–2.46, p = 0.22). There were no significant differences in the majority of secondary outcomes, particularly days 1–3. However, during days 4–28, there were fewer median number of bowel movements per day in the methylnaltrexone group, ( p = 0.01) and a greater incidence of diarrhoea in the placebo group ( p = 0.02). There was a marked difference in mortality between the groups, with ten deaths in the methylnaltrexone group and two in the placebo group during days 4–28 ( p = 0.007).

          Conclusion

          We found no evidence to support the addition of methylnaltrexone to regular laxatives for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation in critically ill patients; however, the confidence interval was wide and a clinically important difference cannot be excluded.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-019-05913-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

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

          Efficacy and safety of a paired sedation and ventilator weaning protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care (Awakening and Breathing Controlled trial): a randomised controlled trial.

          Approaches to removal of sedation and mechanical ventilation for critically ill patients vary widely. Our aim was to assess a protocol that paired spontaneous awakening trials (SATs)-ie, daily interruption of sedatives-with spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs). In four tertiary-care hospitals, we randomly assigned 336 mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care to management with a daily SAT followed by an SBT (intervention group; n=168) or with sedation per usual care plus a daily SBT (control group; n=168). The primary endpoint was time breathing without assistance. Data were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00097630. One patient in the intervention group did not begin their assigned treatment protocol because of withdrawal of consent and thus was excluded from analyses and lost to follow-up. Seven patients in the control group discontinued their assigned protocol, and two of these patients were lost to follow-up. Patients in the intervention group spent more days breathing without assistance during the 28-day study period than did those in the control group (14.7 days vs 11.6 days; mean difference 3.1 days, 95% CI 0.7 to 5.6; p=0.02) and were discharged from intensive care (median time in intensive care 9.1 days vs 12.9 days; p=0.01) and the hospital earlier (median time in the hospital 14.9 days vs 19.2 days; p=0.04). More patients in the intervention group self-extubated than in the control group (16 patients vs six patients; 6.0% difference, 95% CI 0.6% to 11.8%; p=0.03), but the number of patients who required reintubation after self-extubation was similar (five patients vs three patients; 1.2% difference, 95% CI -5.2% to 2.5%; p=0.47), as were total reintubation rates (13.8%vs 12.5%; 1.3% difference, 95% CI -8.6% to 6.1%; p=0.73). At any instant during the year after enrolment, patients in the intervention group were less likely to die than were patients in the control group (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92; p=0.01). For every seven patients treated with the intervention, one life was saved (number needed to treat was 7.4, 95% CI 4.2 to 35.5). Our results suggest that a wake up and breathe protocol that pairs daily spontaneous awakening trials (ie, interruption of sedatives) with daily spontaneous breathing trials results in better outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care than current standard approaches and should become routine practice.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Gastrointestinal function in intensive care patients: terminology, definitions and management. Recommendations of the ESICM Working Group on Abdominal Problems

            Purpose Acute gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction and failure have been increasingly recognized in critically ill patients. The variety of definitions proposed in the past has led to confusion and difficulty in comparing one study to another. An international working group convened to standardize the definitions for acute GI failure and GI symptoms and to review the therapeutic options. Methods The Working Group on Abdominal Problems (WGAP) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) developed the definitions for GI dysfunction in intensive care patients on the basis of the available evidence and current understanding of the pathophysiology. Results Definitions for acute gastrointestinal injury (AGI) with its four grades of severity, as well as for feeding intolerance syndrome and GI symptoms (e.g. vomiting, diarrhoea, paralysis, high gastric residual volumes) are proposed. AGI is a malfunctioning of the GI tract in intensive care patients due to their acute illness. AGI grade I = increased risk of developing GI dysfunction or failure (a self-limiting condition); AGI grade II = GI dysfunction (a condition that requires interventions); AGI grade III = GI failure (GI function cannot be restored with interventions); AGI grade IV = dramatically manifesting GI failure (a condition that is immediately life-threatening). Current evidence and expert opinions regarding treatment of acute GI dysfunction are provided. Conclusions State-of-the-art definitions for GI dysfunction with gradation as well as management recommendations are proposed on the basis of current medical evidence and expert opinion. The WGAP recommends using these definitions for clinical and research purposes. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00134-011-2459-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Methylnaltrexone for opioid-induced constipation in advanced illness.

              Constipation is a distressing side effect of opioid treatment. As a quaternary amine, methylnaltrexone, a mu-opioid-receptor antagonist, has restricted ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. We investigated the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous methylnaltrexone for treating opioid-induced constipation in patients with advanced illness. A total of 133 patients who had received opioids for 2 or more weeks and who had received stable doses of opioids and laxatives for 3 or more days without relief of opioid-induced constipation were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous methylnaltrexone (at a dose of 0.15 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo every other day for 2 weeks. Coprimary outcomes were laxation (defecation) within 4 hours after the first dose of the study drug and laxation within 4 hours after two or more of the first four doses. Patients who completed this phase were eligible to enter a 3-month, open-label extension trial. In the methylnaltrexone group, 48% of patients had laxation within 4 hours after the first study dose, as compared with 15% in the placebo group, and 52% had laxation without the use of a rescue laxative within 4 hours after two or more of the first four doses, as compared with 8% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). The response rate remained consistent throughout the extension trial. The median time to laxation was significantly shorter in the methylnaltrexone group than in the placebo group. Evidence of withdrawal mediated by central nervous system opioid receptors or changes in pain scores was not observed. Abdominal pain and flatulence were the most common adverse events. Subcutaneous methylnaltrexone rapidly induced laxation in patients with advanced illness and opioid-induced constipation. Treatment did not appear to affect central analgesia or precipitate opioid withdrawal. (Clinical Trials.gov number, NCT00402038 [ClinicalTrials.gov].). Copyright 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                parind.patel@nhs.net
                Journal
                Intensive Care Med
                Intensive Care Med
                Intensive Care Medicine
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                0342-4642
                1432-1238
                3 February 2020
                2020
                : 46
                : 4
                : 747-755
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.417895.6, ISNI 0000 0001 0693 2181, Centre for Perioperative Medicine and Critical Care Research, , Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, ; London, UK
                [2 ]GRID grid.7445.2, ISNI 0000 0001 2113 8111, Division of Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine and Intensive Care, Department of Surgery and Cancer, , Imperial College London, ; London, UK
                [3 ]GRID grid.7445.2, ISNI 0000 0001 2113 8111, Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, , Imperial College London, ; London, UK
                [4 ]GRID grid.7372.1, ISNI 0000 0000 8809 1613, Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, , University of Warwick, ; Coventry, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8346-3382
                Article
                5913
                10.1007/s00134-019-05913-6
                7223905
                32016532
                e23f43e8-92a0-4f9b-8148-e62654675493
                © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.

                History
                : 7 October 2019
                : 23 December 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100009128, Research for Patient Benefit Programme;
                Award ID: PB-PG-0613-31073
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Original
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                methylnaltrexone,constipation,laxatives,critical care
                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                methylnaltrexone, constipation, laxatives, critical care

                Comments

                Comment on this article