13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Antacid attenuates the laxative action of magnesia in cancer patients receiving opioid analgesic

      research-article

      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

          Objective

          This study was designed to investigate pharmacological interaction between magnesium laxative and antacid in patients receiving opioid analgesic.

          Methods

          Data obtained from a total of 441 eligible patients receiving opioid analgesic for the first time were retrospectively analysed. The incidence of constipation, defined as stool‐free interval of 3 days and more within the first week of opioid intake, was compared between patients who took laxative alone and those who received laxative in combination with antacid.

          Key findings

          Laxatives were prescribed in 74% of patients, among them 61% received antacids such as proton pump inhibitor and H 2 receptor blocker. Magnesia was the most commonly used laxative (89%). Constipation occurred in 21% and 55% of patients with and without laxatives, respectively. Antacids reversed the laxative action of lower doses (<2000 mg/day) but not higher doses ( >2000 mg/day) of magnesia without affecting the effects of other laxatives. Therefore, it is suggested that both acid‐dependent and acid‐independent mechanisms may operate in the laxative action of magnesia, in which the former may be involved in the action of lower doses of magnesia.

          Conclusion

          Care should be taken to avoid the unfavourable pharmacological interaction between low doses of magnesia and antacid.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

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

          Strategies to manage the adverse effects of oral morphine: an evidence-based report.

          Successful pain management with opioids requires that adequate analgesia be achieved without excessive adverse effects. By these criteria, a substantial minority of patients treated with oral morphine (10% to 30%) do not have a successful outcome because of (1) excessive adverse effects, (2) inadequate analgesia, or (3) a combination of both excessive adverse effects along with inadequate analgesia. The management of excessive adverse effects remains a major clinical challenge. Multiple approaches have been described to address this problem. The clinical challenge of selecting the best option is enhanced by the lack of definitive, evidence-based comparative data. Indeed, this aspect of opioid therapeutics has become a focus of substantial controversy. This study presents evidence-based recommendations for clinical-practice formulated by an Expert Working Group of the European Association of Palliative Care (EAPC) Research NETWORK: These recommendations highlight the need for careful evaluation to distinguish between morphine adverse effects from comorbidity, dehydration, or drug interactions, and initial consideration of dose reduction (possibly by the addition of a co analgesic). If side effects persist, the clinician should consider options of symptomatic management of the adverse effect, opioid rotation, or switching route of systemic administration. The approaches are described and guidelines are provided to aid in selecting between therapeutic options.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Management of opioid side effects in cancer-related and chronic noncancer pain: a systematic review.

            Side effects can limit opioid dosage and reduce quality of life. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the management of opioid side effects in the context of cancer pain management or, in the event that no evidence was available for cancer pain, for chronic noncancer pain. The side effects studied were constipation, pruritus, nausea and vomiting, myoclonus, sedation, respiratory depression, and delirium. Opioid rotation to manage side effects was also studied. For each side effect, we searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and identified 657 possible titles for inclusion. Of these, 67 studies met inclusion criteria for analysis. The lack of well-designed, randomized controlled trials and the heterogeneity of populations and study designs made the drawing of firm conclusions difficult and precluded performance of meta-analysis. The type, strength, and consistency of evidence for available interventions to manage opioid side effects vary from strong (eg, on the use of naloxone to reverse respiratory depression or constipation) to weak (eg, changing from the oral to epidural route of morphine administration to manage sedation). Well-designed trials in the specified populations are required to furnish clinicians with secure evidence on managing opioid side effects successfully.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Improved prevention of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with palonosetron, a pharmacologically novel 5-HT3 receptor antagonist: results of a phase III, single-dose trial versus dolasetron.

              Palonosetron, a highly selective and potent 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist with a strong binding affinity and a long plasma elimination half-life (approximately 40 hours), has shown efficacy in Phase II trials in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) resulting from highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The current Phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed CINV after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. In the current study, 592 patients were randomized to receive a single, intravenous dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg, palonosetron 0.75 mg, or dolasetron 100 mg, 30 minutes before receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with a complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the first 24 hours after chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints included assessment of prevention of delayed emesis (2-5 days postchemotherapy). In the current study, 569 patients received study medication and were included in the intent-to-treat efficacy analyses. CR rates during the first 24 hours were 63.0% for palonosetron 0.25 mg, 57.1% for palonosetron 0.75 mg, and 52.9% for dolasetron 100 mg. CR rates during the delayed period (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) were superior for palonosetron compared with dolasetron. Adverse events (AEs) were mostly mild to moderate and not related to study medication, with similar incidences among groups. There were no serious drug-related AEs. A single dose of palonosetron is as effective as a single dose of dolasetron in preventing acute CINV and superior to dolasetron in preventing delayed CINV after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, with a comparable safety profile for all treatment groups. Copyright 2003 American Cancer Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Pharm Pharmacol
                J. Pharm. Pharmacol
                10.1111/(ISSN)2042-7158
                JPHP
                The Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0022-3573
                2042-7158
                30 June 2016
                September 2016
                : 68
                : 9 ( doiID: 10.1111/jphp.2016.68.issue-9 )
                : 1214-1221
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Biomedical InformaticsGifu University Graduate School of Medicine GifuJapan
                [ 2 ]Katorea Pharmacy GifuJapan
                [ 3 ] Department of PharmacyGifu University Hospital GifuJapan
                [ 4 ] Department of Clinical PharmaceuticsMeiji Pharmaceutical University TokyoJapan
                [ 5 ] Department of GastroenterologyGifu University Graduate School of Medicine GifuJapan
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Masashi Ishihara, Department of Pharmacy, Gifu University Hospital, Gifu, Japan.

                E‐mail: masaphd@ 123456gifu-u.ac.jp

                Article
                JPHP12600
                10.1111/jphp.12600
                5129525
                27364763
                ee643c89-f197-4101-89c0-42423534a292
                © 2016 The Authors. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 12 February 2016
                : 11 June 2016
                Page count
                Pages: 8
                Categories
                Research Paper
                Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                jphp12600
                September 2016
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:4.9.8 mode:remove_FC converted:24.11.2016

                antacid,constipation,laxative,magnesia,opioid analgesic,pharmacological interaction

                Comments

                Comment on this article