Eosinophil Depletion with Benralizumab for Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Benralizumab is an eosinophil-depleting anti-interleukin-5 receptor α monoclonal antibody. The efficacy and safety of benralizumab in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis are unclear. METHODS: In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients 12 to 65 years of age with symptomatic and histologically active eosinophilic esophagitis in a 1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous benralizumab (30 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks. The two primary efficacy end points were histologic response (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) and the change from baseline in the score on the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ; range, 0 to 84, with higher scores indicating more frequent or severe dysphagia) at week 24. RESULTS: A total of 211 patients underwent randomization: 104 were assigned to receive benralizumab, and 107 were assigned to receive placebo. At week 24, more patients had a histologic response with benralizumab than with placebo (87.4% vs. 6.5%; difference, 80.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 72.9 to 88.8; P<0.001). However, the change from baseline in the DSQ score did not differ significantly between the two groups (difference in least-squares means, 3.0 points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 7.4; P = 0.18). There was no substantial between-group difference in the change from baseline in the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score, which reflects endoscopic abnormalities. Adverse events were reported in 64.1% of the patients in the benralizumab group and in 61.7% of those in the placebo group. No patients discontinued the trial because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients 12 to 65 years of age with eosinophilic esophagitis, a histologic response (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) occurred in significantly more patients in the benralizumab group than in the placebo group. However, treatment with benralizumab did not result in fewer or less severe dysphagia symptoms than placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca; MESSINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04543409.).

Treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis with benralizumab: results from the HILLIER study, a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic (long-lasting) skin disease that leads to dry, itchy, and swollen red spots, which can also be painful and flare up at any time. Some people with AD have a high number of eosinophils, a type of white blood cell, which are associated with worse disease. Medicated creams and lotions, prescribed by health care providers, are meant to reduce the symptoms of AD. For some people, these creams and lotions do not work. Benralizumab injection is a medication that reduces and removes eosinophils. A clinical trial called HILLER tested benralizumab to see if there was a difference in symptoms of AD after reducing or removing eosinophils. This article explains how benralizumab reduced eosinophils and the effect it had on AD symptoms in the HILLIER study. WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: Benralizumab reduced blood eosinophil numbers. However, benralizumab showed no evidence of treatment benefit on signs, symptoms, or severity of AD, as measured by three skin assessments compared with placebo. Benralizumab was well tolerated and had a safety profile that was consistent with previous studies. The five most commonly reported side effects were COVID-19 infection, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, swelling of the lymph nodes, and pink eye (conjunctivitis) in patients who received either benralizumab or placebo. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: Benralizumab lowered the number of blood eosinophils without improving AD symptoms and was well tolerated.

Benralizumab does not elicit therapeutic effect in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: results from the phase IIb multinational randomized double-blind placebo-controlled ARROYO trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a relatively common skin disease associated with hives and angio-oedema. Eosinophils play a role in CSU pathogenesis. Benralizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 receptor-α monoclonal antibody, has been shown to induce nearly complete depletion of eosinophils. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical efficacy and safety of benralizumab in patients with CSU who were symptomatic despite H1 antihistamine treatment. METHODS: The 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIb portion of the ARROYO trial enrolled adult patients with CSU who were currently on H1 antihistamine treatment. Patients were randomized to one of five treatment groups according to benralizumab dose and regimen for a 24-week treatment period. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in Itch Severity Score (ISS)7 at week 12. The key secondary endpoint was change from baseline in Urticaria Activity Score (UAS)7 at week 12. Additional secondary endpoints included other metrics to assess CSU at week 24, blood eosinophil levels, and pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity assessments. Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to explore responses according to demographics, clinical features and biomarkers. Safety was assessed in all treatment groups. RESULTS: Of 155 patients, 59 were randomized to benralizumab 30 mg, 56 to benralizumab 60 mg and 40 to placebo. Baseline and disease characteristics were consistent with what was expected for patients with CSU. There were no significant differences in change from baseline in ISS7 score at week 12 between benralizumab and placebo [benralizumab 30 mg vs. placebo, least-squares mean difference -1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.28 to 1.26; benralizumab 60 mg vs. placebo, least-squares mean difference -1.79, 95% CI -4.09 to 0.50] nor in change from baseline in UAS7 score at week 12 between benralizumab and placebo (benralizumab 30 mg vs. placebo, P = 0.407; benralizumab 60 mg vs. placebo, P = 0.082). Depletion of blood eosinophil levels was observed at week 24 in patients treated with benralizumab. All other secondary endpoints and exploratory/subgroup analyses indicated no significant differences between benralizumab and placebo. Safety results were consistent with the known profile of benralizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Although benralizumab resulted in near-complete depletion of blood eosinophils, there was no clinical benefit over placebo.

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a common disease characterized by hives, itching and inflammation (swelling) of the skin. CSU is mainly driven by what we call 'mast cells'. 'Eosinophils' are a type of white blood cell that protect the body from infections and allergens. These cells are abundant in skin biopsy samples of people with CSU, especially in the hives that contribute to swelling. Therefore, we thought that reducing eosinophils would be beneficial for treating CSU. Benralizumab is a drug that has been shown to reduce eosinophils in other diseases. This study, called 'ARROYO', was a 24-week clinical trial that compared benralizumab treatment with a placebo (inactive medicine) in adults with CSU who were taking antihistamines. We aimed to determine whether benralizumab would improve symptoms of CSU over time. Several assessments were used to measure changes in CSU symptoms, including hives, severity of itchiness, swelling of the skin, and other aspects related to overall psychological and physical wellbeing. The characteristics of the 155 people who took part in this study were consistent with what was expected for patients with CSU. We found that while benralizumab reduced eosinophil levels in people with CSU, there were no differences in symptoms in people receiving benralizumab compared with those receiving placebo. There were no new safety concerns related to benralizumab and no deaths. Overall, although benralizumab is effective at reducing the number of eosinophils, it is not effective at treating the symptoms of CSU. More studies are needed to uncover potential treatment targets in CSU.

Characteristics, treatment patterns, health care resource utilization and costs in patients with bullous pemphigoid: A retrospective analysis of US health insurance claims data.

Background: Real-world data describing the impact of incident bullous pemphigoid (BP) on patients and health care resource utilization (HCRU) are limited. Objective: To examine characteristics, treatment patterns, HCRU, and costs for incident BP. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 2015 to 2019 US health insurance claims for patients ≥18 years with an incident BP diagnosis. Patients with BP were matched to those without on demographic and clinical characteristics. Statistics were descriptive. Results: The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score was higher for patients with BP (n = 1108) than without (n = 4621) at baseline (mean [SD]: 3.3 [2.7] vs 2.8 [2.4]) and during follow-up (5.0 [4.9] vs 3.7 [3.0]). Hypertension, diabetes, skin ulcers, chronic pulmonary disease, dyslipidemia, sleep disorders, and congestive heart failure were higher with BP. Most patients with BP received antibiotics (>80%) and/or corticosteroids (>90%). Hospitalizations were more common (44.0% vs 17.1%) and monthly all-cause health care costs more than double ($3214 vs $1353) in patients with BP than without. Limitations: Diagnoses were based on billing codes. HCRU claims data may not reflect the true number of encounters. Conclusion: Incident BP is associated with considerable morbidity, HCRU, and costs. More effective, targeted treatments are needed to improve quality of life, while minimizing exposure to systemic corticosteroids.

Development and content validation of a symptom assessment for eosinophilic gastritis and eosinophilic gastroenteritis in adults and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: A patient reported outcome (PRO) instrument with evidence of validity and reliability for assessing symptoms of eosinophilic gastritis (EG) and eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EGE) is needed to measure treatment benefit in clinical trials. The aim of this research is to develop an EG/EGE symptom PRO instrument for patients aged 12 and above. METHODS: The Symptom Assessment for Gastrointestinal Eosinophilic Diseases (SAGED) was developed through a literature review, discussions with expert clinicians, and concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews with patients. Patients (n = 28) were recruited based on confirmed diagnosis and self-reported symptoms. The final instrument was translated and linguistically validated with additional cognitive debriefing interviews (n = 105). RESULTS: SAGED is a 24-h recall questionnaire consisting of eight items evaluating the core symptoms of EG and EGE (abdominal pain, nausea, bloating, early satiety, loss of appetite, vomiting, and diarrhea). Seven of the eight items are evaluated on an 11-point numerical rating scale ranging from 'none' to 'worst imaginable'. Cognitive debriefing interviews showed that adults and adolescents understand the content and are able to select a response that reflects their experience. The linguistic validation process produced 21 translations that are understandable to patients and conceptually equivalent to the source version. CONCLUSIONS: SAGED is suitable for measuring symptom improvement in adult and adolescent patients with EG and/or EGE. The content validity of SAGED has been established through best practices in qualitative research for PRO instrument development. The psychometric properties of SAGED will be evaluated in a future study.

Impact of opioid use on patients undergoing screening colonoscopy according to the quality of bowel preparation.

AIMS: Constipation associated with opioid therapy for chronic pain may negatively impact colonoscopy success. This retrospective, observational study using administrative data and electronic medical records evaluated the impact of opioid use on colonoscopy outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Procedural codes were used to identify patients who had a screening colonoscopy at two Henry Ford Health System centers (January 2015-December 2016). All patients had completed a standard uniform bowel preparation protocol. Medication orders and filled prescriptions were used to identify patients with a history of opioid use during the 28 days preprocedure (exposed) and a matched random sample of presumptive opioid nonusers (unexposed). Electronic medical records were reviewed for colonoscopy procedure data and outcomes.The exposed and unexposed groups included 964 and 1054 patients, respectively. Inadequate bowel preparation was significantly more common in the exposed versus unexposed group (18.5% vs 12.7%; P < 0.001). In the exposed and unexposed groups, 97.1 and 98.0% of colonoscopy procedures were completed, respectively (P = nonsignificant). Total procedure time was slightly increased for the exposed versus unexposed group (23.8 vs 22.5 min; P = 0.039). Polyp identification and cancer diagnosis were similar between groups. Prolonged sedation occurred in three patients in the exposed group and none in the unexposed group. Procedural complications were rare, but the incidence was significantly greater in the exposed versus unexposed group (1.3% vs 0.2%; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Opioid exposure was associated with significant reductions in the quality of preprocedure bowel preparation and an increased risk of complications in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

A Randomized, Multicenter, Prospective, Crossover, Open-Label Study of Factors Associated With Patient Preferences for Naloxegol or PEG 3350 for Opioid-Induced Constipation.

OBJECTIVES: To determine patient preference for treating opioid-induced constipation (OIC) using naloxegol or polyethylene glycol (PEG) 3350 in patients receiving opioids for noncancer pain. METHODS: This crossover study included two 2-week active treatment periods, each preceded by a 1-week washout period (NCT03060512). Individuals with baseline Bowel Function Index scores ≥30 were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment sequences (naloxegol/PEG 3350 or PEG 3350/naloxegol). Patient preference (primary end point) was measured at the end of the second treatment period. RESULTS: Of 276 patients randomized, 246 completed both treatment periods and reported preference (per protocol). Similar proportions of patients reported overall preference for naloxegol (50.4%) or PEG 3350 (48.0%; P = 0.92); 1.6% reported no preference. Medication characteristics influencing preference were similar for both treatments, except convenience and working quickly, which were strong influences of preference for higher proportions of patients preferring naloxegol (69.9% and 39.0%, respectively) vs those preferring PEG 3350 (29.9% and 27.4%, respectively). Patients aged <50 years or receiving laxatives within the previous 2 weeks generally preferred naloxegol. Changes from baseline in overall Bowel Function Index and Patient Global Impression of Change scores were similar between treatments, but analyses according to treatment preference revealed clinical improvement aligned with reported preference. Safety profiles were generally consistent with known medication profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Almost equal proportions of patients with OIC reported similar preference for daily naloxegol or PEG 3350 treatment, and their preference was generally supported by clinically relevant and measurable improvements in OIC symptoms.

Opioid utilization patterns among patients with cancer and non-cancer pain.

OBJECTIVE: Opioid pain medication continues to be an important treatment option for patients with moderate to severe cancer and non-cancer pain; however, limited evidence is available regarding differences in opioid use between these two populations. The objective of this analysis was to compare real-world opioid use patterns over time in these two populations. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of administrative claims data. SETTING: HealthCore Integrated Research Environment database. PATIENTS: Adults with ≥1 opioid pharmacy claim (and a confirmed cancer diagnosis for the cancer pain cohort). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Opioid doses and dose changes following the initial prescribed (index) dose were determined. RESULTS: In the cancer pain (n = 9,209) and non-cancer pain (n = 409,703) cohorts, median index opioid doses were 51.7 and 45.0 morphine-equivalent units (MEU), respectively, and median post-index opioid doses were 55.8 and 45.1 MEU for the cancer pain and non-cancer pain cohorts, respectively. The most common dose escalation in both groups was up to a dose doubling (cancer pain, 31.8 percent; non-cancer pain, 28.3 percent). The proportions of patients with dose increases exceeding two times the index dose were low and clinically comparable between cohorts (cancer pain, 9.9 percent; non-cancer pain, 7.4 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Opioid use was consistent between patients with cancer pain and non-cancer pain, including clinically comparable total daily opioid doses and consistent rates of dose escalations and chronic utilization. Opioid medications are an important element of cancer and non-cancer pain management; thus, access to appropriate therapies, use patterns, and risk assessment and management are important for both patient populations.

Analysis of Patient-Provider Interactions Regarding the Burden and Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Adults with Chronic Noncancer Pain.

OBJECTIVE: This analysis of patient-health care provider discussions of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) evaluated the dynamics of interactions, identified communication gaps, and assessed the functional burden of opioid-induced constipation on patients' lives. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant database of >120,000 patient-provider conversations. SETTING: Outpatient offices in the United States. METHODS: Conversations between providers and patients prescribed opioids that occurred in the United States (January 2014-May 2016) and included a discussion of opioid-induced constipation were identified. Demographics and prespecified opioid-induced constipation conversation characteristics were evaluated for these conversations. RESULTS: This analysis included 216 patient-provider discussions. Most patients (76.4% [165/216]) were ≥50 years old. Most conversations were with pain management specialists (39.8% [86/216]) or primary care physicians (36.6% [79/216]). Overall, 64.4% (139/216) of patients reported experiencing symptoms of constipation. Health care providers indicated that symptoms of constipation could be caused by opioid use for 75.5% (105/139) of patients with constipation. In most cases (82.4% [178/216]), providers did not probe about specific constipation symptoms. Few patients (11.5% [16/139]) with OIC discussed the burden of OIC with their providers; burdens reported by patients with OIC included emergency room visits and reduced food or fluid intake. No specific action was recommended for 33.8% (47/139) of patients with constipation. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, when opioid-induced constipation was discussed, health care providers did not inquire about specific symptoms for most patients, opioids were not cited as a cause of constipation in approximately one-quarter of patients with opioid-induced constipation, and no clear treatment plan or guidance was recommended for one-third of patients. Results of this analysis suggest that more education may be needed to improve patient-provider communication about opioid-induced constipation.

Impact of opioid-induced constipation on healthcare resource utilization and costs for cancer pain patients receiving continuous opioid therapy.

PURPOSE: Opioid therapy is often associated with adverse effects, including opioid-induced constipation (OIC), in patients receiving opioids for cancer pain. This retrospective observational cohort study evaluated healthcare utilization and costs during the first year after initiating opioid therapy among cancer patients with (cohort 1) and without (cohort 2) constipation. METHODS: This study used administrative claims data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2014. Eligible patients included adults ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of cancer who initiated continuous opioid therapy (≥ 30 days). Propensity scores were used to match patients with constipation in a 1:1 ratio to those without constipation. Generalized linear models were used to evaluate healthcare utilization and costs during the 12 months after initiating opioid therapy. RESULTS: After matching, 1369 patients were included in each cohort. Patients with constipation were more than twice as likely as those without constipation to have an all-cause inpatient hospitalization (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)], 2.47 [2.11-2.90]), or pain-related hospitalization (2.15 [1.82-2.54]) during the 12 months after initiating therapy. Mean unadjusted overall healthcare costs during the first 12 months post-index were $21,629 (95% CI, $14,850-$29,018) higher for patients with constipation than for those without constipation. For patients with constipation, total mean (SD) constipation-related costs were $9196 ($26,896). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that OIC is associated with significantly increased healthcare and economic burden in cancer pain patients and that early and ongoing recognition and management of OIC are unmet needs in this population.

Efficacy and safety of naloxegol for opioid-induced constipation assessed by specific opioid medication, opioid dose, and duration of opioid use.

OBJECTIVE: Efficacy and safety of naloxegol, a peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonist that significantly reduces opioid-induced constipation (OIC), were assessed for patient subgroups defined post hoc by baseline maintenance opioid characteristics. DESIGN: Post hoc, pooled analysis of data from two 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies. SETTING: Two hundred fifty-seven outpatient centers in the United States and Europe. PATIENTS: Patients with noncancer pain and OIC. INTERVENTIONS: Naloxegol (12.5 or 25 mg daily) or placebo. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients meeting response criteria at 12 weeks: at least three spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs)/wk and an increase from baseline of at least one SBM for ≥9 of 12 weeks and ≥3 of the last 4 weeks. No adjustments were made for multiplicity; all p values are descriptive. RESULTS: This analysis included 1,337 patients. Increases in the proportion of patients who achieved response at 12 weeks were observed with naloxegol 25 mg versus placebo in patients taking maintenance oxycodone, hydrocodone, morphine, or fentanyl (p ≤ 0.038); patients taking either ≥120 or <120 morphine-equivalent units at baseline (p ≤ 0.032); and patients treated with their current opioid for >6 months (p ≤ 0.035). Efficacy results were less robust with naloxegol 12.5 mg versus placebo. Adverse event incidences were generally comparable across treatment groups, regardless of opioid dose or duration of therapy but were numerically higher with some specific baseline opioids. CONCLUSION: In this post hoc, exploratory analysis, naloxegol 25 mg showed similar efficacy in treating OIC regardless of maintenance opioid type, dose, or duration of opioid use at baseline.

Resource use and costs associated with opioid-induced constipation following total hip or total knee replacement surgery.

PURPOSE: Constipation is a well-known complication of surgery that can be exacerbated by opioid analgesics. This study evaluated resource utilization and costs associated with opioid-induced constipation (OIC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective, observational, and propensity-matched cohort study utilized the Premier Healthcare Database. The study included adults ≥18 years of age undergoing total hip or total knee replacement as inpatients who received an opioid analgesic and were discharged between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2015. Diagnosis codes identified patients with OIC who were then matched 1:1 to patients without OIC. Generalized linear and logistic regression models were used to compare inpatient resource utilization, total hospital costs, inpatient mortality, and 30-day all-cause readmissions and emergency department visits. RESULTS: Of 788,448 eligible patients, 40,891 (5.2%) had OIC. Covariates were well balanced between matched patients with and without OIC (n=40,890 each). In adjusted analyses, patients with OIC had longer hospital lengths of stay (3.6 versus 3.3 days; p<0.001), higher total hospital costs (US$17,479 versus US$16,265; p<0.001), greater risk of intensive care unit admission (odds ratio [OR]=1.12, 95% CI: 1.01-1.24), and increased likelihood of 30-day hospital read-missions (OR=1.16, 95% CI: 1.11-1.22) and emergency department visits (OR=1.38, 95% CI: 1.07-1.79) than patients without OIC. No statistically significant difference was found with inpatient mortality (OR=0.89, 95% CI: 0.59-1.35). CONCLUSION: OIC was associated with greater resource utilization and hospital costs for patients undergoing primarily elective total hip or total knee replacement surgery. These results support OIC screening and management strategies as part of perioperative care management.

The Burden of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Younger Patients with Chronic Noncancer Pain.

Objective: The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the experience of opioid-induced constipation in younger patients and identify differences in the experience of opioid-induced constipation and its symptoms between younger patients (<50 years) and older patients (50-64 years). Design: Post hoc analysis of data from a 24-week prospective, multinational, longitudinal observational cohort study (NCT01928953). Setting: Outpatient clinics in the United States, Canada, Germany, and United Kingdom. Subjects: Two age-based subgroups of adult patients with chronic noncancer pain receiving four or more weeks of daily opioid therapy and experiencing opioid-induced constipation within the previous two weeks. Methods: The number of spontaneous bowel movements, frequency of constipation symptoms, amount of bother associated with symptoms, Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms questionnaire, and health-related quality of life and function outcomes. Results: Overall, 419 patients were included in this analysis (younger patients, N = 184; older patients, N = 235). Among younger and older patients, respectively, constipation occurred within the first week after initiating opioid therapy for 32.8% and 35.9%. At baseline, the mean numbers of spontaneous bowel movements/week were 1.3 and 1.5, and moderate opioid-induced constipation-related interference with pain management was reported by 46.6% and 44.5%. Younger patients generally reported that opioid-induced constipation symptoms were more bothersome than did older patients. The impact of opioid-induced constipation on health-related quality of life, work productivity, and day-to-day activities was comparable. Conclusions: In these patients receiving opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain, the burden of opioid-induced constipation was comparable or greater for patients aged <50 years compared with that for patients aged 50-64 years.

Comparing Healthcare Utilization and Costs Among Medicaid-Insured Patients with Chronic Noncancer Pain with and without Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Constipation is a common adverse effect of opioid use and has been associated with increased healthcare utilization and costs among patients receiving opioids for pain management. OBJECTIVE: To compare the healthcare utilization and costs of Medicaid patients with chronic noncancer pain with and without constipation who were receiving opioids. METHODS: This retrospective, claims-based study was conducted using data from the Truven Health MarketScan Medicaid Multi-State database. Patients with no evidence of cancer who initiated opioid therapy between January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2013, were eligible for the study. Patients had to have continuous enrollment in the database in the 6 months before and 12 months after opioid initiation, with no evidence of substance abuse or functional or inflammatory bowel disease. Medical and pharmacy claims during the 12 months after opioid initiation were evaluated for a diagnosis of constipation or for prescription or over-the-counter medications indicative of constipation. All-cause healthcare utilization and costs were measured over the same period and were compared between propensity score-matched cohorts of patients with evidence of constipation and patients without constipation. RESULTS: Of the 25,744 patients meeting the study inclusion criteria, 2716 (10.5%) had evidence of constipation. After 1:1 propensity score matching, the 2 cohorts had similar demographic and clinical characteristics (ie, mean age, 47 years; 26%-27% male). During the 12-month follow-up period, healthcare utilization was more frequent among patients with constipation, including inpatient admissions and emergency department visits, than in the matched patients without constipation. The total all-cause mean healthcare costs were substantially higher among the patients with constipation ($28,234; 95% confidence interval [CI], $24,307-$32,160) than in the patients without constipation ($13,709; 95% CI, $12,618-$14,801), with a median cost difference of $4166 per patient (P <.001). CONCLUSION: Among Medicaid enrollees who receive opioids for chronic noncancer pain, constipation is associated with increased all-cause healthcare utilization and costs.

Clinical and Functional Characteristics of Nursing Facility Residents with Opioid-Induced Constipation.

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to determine the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and treatment differences of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in older adults with noncancer pain compared with opioid-treated patients without OIC. DESIGN: Retrospective database analysis. SETTING: United States nursing facilities: Patients, Participants, facility residents. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Minimum data set and prescription claims, pain, impaired cognition, falls, delirium, and drug treatment. RESULTS: We found an OIC prevalence of 8.9%. Nursing facility residents with OIC are more likely to have severe pain (31.3% vs. 29%; P < 0.001), pain in the last 5 days (71.2% vs. 69.2%; P < 0.001), almost constant pain (18.1% vs.13.3%; P < 0.001), and pain interfering with daily activities (36.1% vs. 30%; P < 0.001). Strong opioids were more likely prescribed and the duration of use was longer than in non-OIC nursing facility residents. Cognitive impairment (56.3% vs. 49.8%; P < 0.001), fall rate (4.8% vs. 2.5%; P = 0.023), delirium indicators (confusion assessment method; P < 0.001), urinary incontinence (59.1% vs. 54.9%; P < 0.001), depression (66.5% vs. 61.6%; P < 0.001), and depression severity score (4.7% vs. 4.3%; P < 0.001) were higher in nursing facility residents with OIC. Nursing facility residents with OIC had a higher percentage of concomitantly prescribed anticholinergic medications (76.7% vs. 70.0%; P < 0.001) and a higher mean anticholinergic burden score (1.4% vs. 1.1%; P < 0.001). Over-the-counter laxatives were used more often than prescription laxatives: polyethylene glycol (43%), docusate (31.1%), and senna/sennosides (23%) vs. lactulose (18.1%) and lubiprostone (2.2%). CONCLUSION: Nursing facility residents with OIC experience suboptimal pain relief, additional anticholinergic adverse drug-related effects, and a decreased quality of life.

Translating Clinical Findings into the Patient's Perspective: Post-hoc Pooled Analysis of Bowel Movement Changes as a Predictor of Improvement in Patients' Opioid-induced Constipation Symptoms and Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a bothersome side effect of opioid use for the management of noncancer pain, affecting patients' health-related quality of life and chronic-pain management. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between changes in the frequency of spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) and changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among patients with OIC treated with naloxegol. METHODS: Post hoc analyses were conducted using pooled data from two Phase III 12-week, placebo-controlled trials of naloxegol for the treatment of OIC (NCT01309841 and NCT01323790). Patients completed the Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) and PAC-Symptoms (PAC-SYM) at each study visit, and the Straining Scale and Bristol Stool Scale (BSS) with each bowel movement for the study duration. Four subgroups were created based on improvements from baseline in mean frequency of SBMs per week: 0 or worse (no change), +1 SBM, +2 SBMs, and +≥3 SBMs. Spearman correlations assessed the association between mean SBM changes from baseline and mean changes from baseline in PROs; analysis of covariance was used to compare changes from baseline. FINDINGS: A total of 1337 patients with mean (SD) age of 52.2 (11.0) years were included in this analysis. The patient population was predominantly white (79.0%) and female (62.4%). At baseline, mean SBM frequency was 1.4 (1.0) per week. At study end, all 4 SBM-change subgroups experienced improvements in PAC-QOL, PAC-SYM, Straining Scale, and BSS scores, and these changes were significantly correlated with mean changes from baseline in SBMs per week. The subgroup of patients with an increase in SBMs of ≥3 per week experienced the greatest improvements in PROs. IMPLICATIONS: In these patients with OIC, an improvement in the frequency of SBMs by ≥3 per week was associated with consistent improvements in PROs, providing support for the use of improvements in SBMs as a clinical outcome surrogate for managing patients with OIC. Further research is needed to determine a threshold for change in SBMs that is clinically meaningful in both research and clinical settings. A key limitation was the post hoc nature of the study, which was not powered prospectively to examine these relationships.

Increased Burden of Healthcare Utilization and Cost Associated with Opioid-Related Constipation Among Patients with Noncancer Pain.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are widely accepted as treatment for moderate to severe pain, and opioid-induced constipation is one of the most common side effects of opioids. This side effect negatively affects pain management and patients' quality of life, which could result in increased healthcare utilization and costs. OBJECTIVE: To assess healthcare utilization and costs (all-cause, constipation-related, and pain-related) for individuals with and without opioid-induced constipation during the 12 months after initiation of opioid therapy for noncancer pain. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using administrative claims data from HealthCore Integrated Research Environment between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2014. The analysis was limited to patients aged ≥18 years who filled a prescription for continuous opioid treatment (≥28 days) for noncancer pain. Propensity scores were used to match opioid users with constipation (cohort 1) and opioid users without constipation (cohort 2), using a 1:1 ratio. Generalized linear models were used to estimate all-cause, constipation-related, and pain-related healthcare utilization and costs during the 12 months after the initiation of opioid therapy. RESULTS: After matching and balancing for all prespecified variables, 17,384 patients were retained in each cohort (mean age, 56 years; 63% female). Opioid users with constipation were twice as likely as those without constipation to have ≥1 inpatient hospitalizations (odds ratio, 2.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.17-2.39) during the 12 months. The total mean adjusted overall costs per patient during the study period were $12,413 higher for patients with constipation versus those without it (95% CI, $11,726-$13,116). The total mean adjusted overall pain-related costs per patient were $6778 (95% CI, $6293-$7279) higher for the patients with constipation than those without. Among patients using opioids for noncancer pain, the annual mean constipation-related costs per patient totaled $4646 (total average plan-paid costs, $4424; total patient-paid costs, $222). CONCLUSIONS: Patients using opioids with newly diagnosed constipation had significantly greater healthcare utilization and costs than patients without constipation; these costs accounted for approximately 16% of the total healthcare costs per patient during the 12-month study period. Recognition and effective treatment of opioid-induced constipation may decrease healthcare utilization for patients with chronic noncancer pain and may reduce the economic burden of pain therapy.

Laxative utilization over time in chronic pain patients with opioid-induced constipation.

AIM: To determine laxative utilization over time among chronic noncancer pain patients with opioid-induced constipation (OIC). SETTING: A prospective longitudinal study conducted in the USA, Canada, Germany and UK. METHODS: Patients on daily opioid therapy for treatment of chronic noncancer pain with OIC were recruited from clinics to complete a survey at Baseline and weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24. RESULTS: 489 patients completed baseline with 452 completing one or more follow-up visits. 128 (28%) were nonlaxative users, 112 (25%) were insufficient laxative users and 212 (47%) were sufficient laxative users. The consistent sufficient laxative users reported the most bowel movements per week. CONCLUSION: The majority of OIC patients do not take or only intermittently take laxatives.

Bipolar II compared with bipolar I disorder: baseline characteristics and treatment response to quetiapine in a pooled analysis of five placebo-controlled clinical trials of acute bipolar depression.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar I and II represent the most common and severe subtypes of bipolar disorder. Although bipolar I disorder is relatively well studied, the clinical characteristics and response to treatment of patients with bipolar II disorder are less well understood. METHODS: To compare the severity and burden of illness of patients with bipolar II versus bipolar I disorder, baseline demographic, clinical, and quality of life data were examined in 1900 patients with bipolar I and 973 patients with bipolar II depression, who were enrolled in five similarly designed clinical placebo-controlled trials of quetiapine immediate-release and quetiapine extended-release. Acute (8 weeks) response to treatment was also compared by assessing rating scale scores, including Montgomery-Åsberg depression rating scale, Hamilton rating scale for anxiety, Young mania rating scale, and clinical global impression-severity scores, in the bipolar I and II populations in the same pooled database. RESULTS: Patients with bipolar I and bipolar II depression were similar in demographics, baseline rating scale scores (depression, anxiety, mania, and quality of life), and mood episode histories. Symptom improvements in response to quetiapine were greater versus comparators (lithium, paroxetine, and placebo) at 4 and 8 weeks in both bipolar I and II patients. Patients with the bipolar II subtype initially showed slower responses to all treatments, but, by 8 weeks, attained similar symptom improvement as patients with bipolar I depression. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled analysis of five clinical trials of quetiapine demonstrated that patients with bipolar II depression have a similar burden of illness and quality of life to patients with bipolar I. Bipolar II patients consistently showed a slower response to treatments than bipolar I patients, but, after 8 weeks of treatment with quetiapine, symptom improvements were similar between bipolar I and II disorder subtypes.