Constipation is a common problem among patients with cancer. By some accounts, about 60% of cancer patients experience constipation. There is limited empirical evidence of the clinical effectiveness of pharmacologic agents in opioid-induced constipation in advanced diseases.

We sought to quantitatively summarize the therapeutic effectiveness of the pharmacologic means of managing opioid-induced constipation.

Randomized control trials (RCTs) identified from medical literature databases that reported quantitative measures of the effect of pharmacotherapeutic agents to treat opioid induced constipation in patients with cancers and other advanced illnesses were included in this study. A conventional random effects meta-analysis was conducted including >3 trials with the same exposure and outcome assessed, and a network-meta-analysis was conducted for all placebo-controlled trials.

Eighteen studies that examined the effect of various pharmacotherapeutic agents were included. The medications were Methylnatrexone (N = 5), Naldemedine (N = 5), other conventional agents (N = 4) and herbal medicines (N = 4). In conventional meta-analysis, methylnaltrexone increased the proportion achieving rescue-free laxation by 2.68 fold (95% CI: 1.34, 5.37; P = 0.0054) within 4 hours of the administration compared to placebo. In network meta-analysis, the pooled RR of the pharmacotherapeutic agents on rescue-free bowel movements as 2.26 (95% CI: 1.52, 3.36) for methylnaltrexone, 1.58 (95% CI: 0.94, 2.66) for naldemedine, and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.45, 1.23) for polyethylene glycol, compared to placebo.

Methylnatrexone and Naldemedine have currently shown promise in randomized trials concerning opioid-induced constipation in cancer and advanced illness. It is imperative that future research ascertain not just the relative therapeutic efficacy but also the cost-benefit analyses of these newer regimens with more commonly used and accessible laxatives.

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to inform the development of national clinical practice guidelines on the management of cancer constipation.

PubMed®, Wiley Cochrane Library, and CINAHL® were searched for studies published from May 2009 to May 2019.

Two investigators independently reviewed and extracted data from eligible studies. The Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool was used, and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.

For patients with cancer and opioid-induced constipation, moderate benefit was found for osmotic or stimulant laxatives; small benefit was found for methylnaltrexone, naldemedine, and electroacupuncture. For patients with cancer and non-opioid-related constipation, moderate benefit was found for naloxegol, prucalopride, lubiprostone, and linaclotide; trivial benefit was found for acupuncture.

Effective strategies for managing opioid-induced and non-opioid-related constipation in patients with cancer include lifestyle, pharmacologic, and complementary approaches.

//bit.ly/3c4yewT.

This evidence-based guideline intends to support clinicians, patients, and others in decisions regarding the treatment of constipation in patients with cancer.

An interprofessional panel of healthcare professionals with patient representation prioritized clinical questions and patient outcomes for the management of cancer-related constipation. Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the evidence and make recommendations.

The panel agreed on 13 recommendations for the management of opioid-induced and non-opioid-related constipation in patients with cancer.

The panel conditionally recommended a bowel regimen in addition to lifestyle education as first-line treatment for constipation. For patients starting opioids, the panel suggests a bowel regimen as prophylaxis. Pharmaceutical interventions are available and recommended if a bowel regimen has failed. Acupuncture and electroacupuncture for non-opioid-related constipation are recommended in the context of a clinical trial.

//bit.ly/30y29sI.

This study seeks to determine whether specific screening for constipation will increase the frequency of clinician response within the context of an established symptom screening program.

A "constipation" item was added to routine Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) screening in gynecologic oncology clinics during a 7-week trial period, without additional constipation-specific training. Chart audits were then conducted to determine documentation of assessment and intervention for constipation in three groups of patients, those who completed (1) ESAS (n = 477), (2) ESAS-C with constipation (n = 435), and (3) no ESAS (n = 511).

Among patients who were screened for constipation, 17% reported moderate to severe symptoms. Greater constipation severity increased the likelihood of documented assessment (Z = 2.37, p = .018) and intervention (Z = 1.99, p = .048). Overall rates of documented assessment were 36%, with the highest assessment rate in the no ESAS group (χ² = 9.505, p = .006), a group with the highest proportion of late-stage disease. No difference in the rate of assessment was found between the ESAS and ESAS-C groups. Overall rates for documentation of intervention were low, and did not differ between groups.

Specific screening for constipation within an established screening program did not increase the documentation rate for constipation assessment or intervention. The inclusion of specific symptoms in multi-symptom screening initiatives should be carefully evaluated in terms of added value versus patient burden. Care pathways should include guidance on triaging results from multi-symptom screening, and clinicians should pay particular attention to patients who are missed from screening altogether, as they may be the most symptomatic group.

As palliative care (PC) moves upstream in the course of serious illness and the development of drugs and their indications rapidly expand, PC providers must understand common drug indications and adverse effects to ensure safe and effective prescribing. Pharmacists, experts in the nuances of medication management, are valuable resources and colleagues for PC providers. This article will offer PC providers 10 useful clinical pharmacy tips that PC pharmacists think all PC providers should know for safe and effective symptom management. Close collaboration with or addition of a trained pharmacist to your PC team can improve clinical care for all PC patients.

Constipation is a common and often debilitating condition in the elderly, which may be caused by underlying disease conditions, structural abnormalities in the bowel, and a variety of medications such as anticholinergics, antidepressants, and opiates. In this review, we focus on opioid-induced constipation (OIC), which is often underrecognized and undertreated in the elderly. When opioid therapy is initiated, healthcare providers are encouraged to evaluate risk factors for the development of constipation as part of a thorough patient history. To this end, the patient assessment should include the use of validated instruments, such as the Bristol Stool Scale and Bowel Function Index, to confirm the diagnosis and provide a basis for evaluating treatment outcomes. Healthcare providers should use a stepwise approach to the treatment of OIC in the elderly. Conventional laxatives are a first-line option and considered well tolerated with short-term use as needed; however, evidence is lacking to support their effectiveness in OIC. Moreover, because of the risk of adverse events and other considerations, such as chewing difficulties and swallowing disorders, conventional oral laxatives may be inappropriate for the treatment of OIC in the elderly. Thus, the availability of new pharmacologic agents such as the peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists methylnaltrexone and naloxegol, which target the underlying causes of OIC, and the secretagogue lubiprostone may provide more effective treatment options for elderly patients with OIC.

Constipation is a common symptom experienced during pregnancy. It has a range of consequences from reduced quality of life and perception of physical health to haemorrhoids. An understanding of the effectiveness and safety of treatments for constipation in pregnancy is important for the clinician managing pregnant women.

To assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy.

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

We considered all published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and quasi-RCTs, evaluating interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for constipation in pregnancy. Cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Trials published in abstract form only (without full text publication) were not eligible for inclusion.We compared one intervention (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) against another intervention, placebo or no treatment.

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.

Four studies were included, but only two studies with a total of 180 women contributed data to this review. It was not clear whether they were RCTs or quasi-RCTs because the sequence generation was unclear. We classified the overall risk of bias of three studies as moderate and one study as high risk of bias. No meta-analyses were carried out due to insufficient data.There were no cluster-RCTs identified for inclusion. Comparisons were available for stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxatives, and fibre supplementation versus no intervention. There were no data available for any other comparisons.During the review process we found that studies reported changes in symptoms in different ways. To capture all data available, we added a new primary outcome (improvement in constipation) - this new outcome was not prespecified in our published protocol. Stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxativesNo data were identified for any of this review's prespecified primary outcomes: pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools.Compared to bulk-forming laxatives, pregnant women who received stimulant laxatives had significantly more improvement in constipation (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence), but also significantly more abdominal discomfort (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.73; 140 women, one study, low quality of evidence), and borderline difference in diarrhoea (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 20.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). In addition, there was no significant difference in women's satisfaction (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence).No usable data were identified for any of this review's secondary outcomes: quality of life; dehydration; electrolyte imbalance; acute allergic reaction; or asthma. Fibre supplementation versus no interventionPregnant women who received fibre supplementation had significantly higher frequency of stools compared to no intervention (mean difference (MD) 2.24 times per week, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.52; 40 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). Fibre supplementation was associated with improved stool consistency as defined by trialists (hard stool decreased by 11% to 14%, normal stool increased by 5% to 10%, and loose stool increased by 0% to 6%).No usable data were reported for either the primary outcomes of pain on defecation and improvement in constipation or any of this review's secondary outcomes as listed above. Quality Five outcomes were assessed with the GRADE software: improvement in constipation, frequency of stools, abdominal discomfort, diarrhoea and women's satisfaction. These were assessed to be of moderate quality except for abdominal discomfort which was assessed to be of low quality. The results should therefore be interpreted with caution. There were no data available for evaluation of pain on defecation or consistency of stools.

There is insufficient evidence to comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy, due to limited data (few studies with small sample size and no meta-analyses). Compared with bulk-forming laxatives, stimulant laxatives appear to be more effective in improvement of constipation (moderate quality evidence), but are accompanied by an increase in diarrhoea (moderate quality evidence) and abdominal discomfort (low quality evidence) and no difference in women's satisfaction (moderate quality evidence). Additionally, fibre supplementation may increase frequency of stools compared with no intervention (moderate quality evidence), although these results were of moderate risk of bias.There were no data for a comparison of other types of interventions, such as osmotic laxatives, stool softeners, lubricant laxatives and enemas and suppositories.More RCTs evaluating interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy are needed. These should cover different settings and evaluate the effectiveness of various interventions (including fibre, osmotic, and stimulant laxatives) on improvement in constipation, pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools.