Physical activity should be the primary intervention for individuals living with chronic pain A position paper from the European Pain Federation (EFIC) 'On the Move' Task Force.

BACKGROUND: There is clear evidence demonstrating the benefits of physical activity (PA) on pain and overall health, however, PA is challenging for many individuals living with chronic pain. Even non-exercise specialists can (cost) effectively promote PA, but many health professionals report a number of barriers in providing guidance on PA, suggesting that it is not consistently promoted. This expert position paper summarizes the evidence and provides five recommendations for health professionals to assess, advise and support individuals living with any chronic pain condition with a long life expectancy in adopting and sustaining physically active lifestyles. METHODS: This position paper was prepared by the 'On The Move' Task Force of the European Pain Federation EFIC. Final recommendations were endorsed by the European Pain Forum, Pain Alliance Europe and the Executive Board of EFIC. RESULTS: We recommend that all health professionals (1) Take a history of the persons' PA levels, and put PA on the agenda, (2) Advise that PA is important and safe for individuals living with chronic pain, (3) Deliver a brief PA intervention and support individuals living with chronic pain in becoming physically active, (4) Discuss acceptable levels of PA-related soreness and pain and (5) Provide ongoing support in staying physically active. SIGNIFICANCE: Physical activity is safe and offers several advantages, including general health benefits, low risk of side effects, low cost and not requiring access to healthcare. Adoption of these recommendations can improve the quality of care and life of individuals living with chronic pain and reduce their overall health risks.

Opioid metabolism and drug-drug interaction in cancer.

Concomitant use of multiple drugs in most patients with cancer may result in drug-drug interactions (DDIs), potentially causing serious adverse effects. These patients often experience unrelieved cancer-related pain (CRP) during and after cancer treatment, which can lead to a reduced quality of life. Opioids can be used as part of a multimodal pain management strategy when non-opioid analgesics are not providing adequate pain relief, not tolerated, or are contraindicated. However, due to their narrow therapeutic window, opioids are more susceptible to adverse events when a DDI occurs. Clinically relevant DDIs with opioids are usually pharmacokinetic, mainly occurring via metabolism by cytochrome P450 (CYP). This article aims to provide an overview of potential DDIs with opioids often used in the treatment of moderate-to-severe CRP and commonly used anticancer drugs such as chemotherapeutics, tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), or biologics. A DDI-checker tool was used to contextualize the tool-informed DDI assessment outcomes with clinical implications and practice. The findings were compared to observations from a literature search conducted in Embase and PubMed to identify clinical evidence for these potential DDIs. The limited results mainly included case studies and retrospective reviews. Some potential DDIs on the DDI-checker were aligned with literature findings, while others were contradictory. In conclusion, while DDI-checkers are useful tools in identifying potential DDIs, it is necessary to incorporate literature verification and comprehensive clinical assessment of the patient before implementing tool-informed decisions in clinical practice.

Concurrent validity of dynamic bedside quantitative sensory testing paradigms in breast cancer survivors with persistent pain.

BACKGROUND: Studies on the concurrent validity of clinically applicable testing protocols for conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and temporal summation of pain (TSP) in breast cancer survivors (BCS) with persistent pain are lacking. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the concurrent validity of two bedside protocols for CPM and TSP in comparison to a respective reference protocol. The participants' preferences for bedside CPM and TSP protocols were assessed. METHODS: Thirty BCS experiencing persistent pain were included in this study. Each participant underwent a reference test along with two bedside alternatives for assessing both TSP and CPM. For CPM, a cold pressor test (CPT) and blood pressure cuff (BPC) were used as conditioning stimulus. The test stimulus was elicited in parallel by pressure pain threshold after 45 and 90 s of conditioning at the lower limb. The CPM reference test consisted of parallel heat stimuli at the forearms using a two-thermode system. TSP was elicited using a von Frey monofilament (256 mN) and an algometer (98 kPa) at the affected site and opposite lower limb. The TSP reference test consisted of heat stimuli at the affected site and opposite lower limb. Participants' testing preference was examined using a purpose-designed questionnaire. Spearman's rank test examined the correlation between protocols. RESULTS: The two bedside CPM protocols were strongly correlated (r = 0.787-0.939, p < 0.005). A strong correlation was found between the BPC protocol and reference test using the relative effect magnitude (r = 0.541-0.555, p < 0.005). The bedside TSP protocols were moderately correlated with each other only at the lower limb using absolute change scores (r = 0.455, p = 0.012). No significant correlation was found between the bedside and reference TSP protocols. CONCLUSION: The significantly moderate to very strong correlations between the bedside protocols validate their interchangeability. Researchers and clinicians should be able to choose which bedside protocol they utilize; however, participants favored the use of a BPC and algometer for the evaluation of CPM and TSP, respectively.

Continuum of somatosensory profiles in breast cancer survivors with and without pain, compared to healthy controls and patients with fibromyalgia.

CONTEXT: The prevalence of persistent pain among breast cancer survivors (BCS) is high, and it is unclear what distinguishes those with persistent pain from those without. Research suggests that differences in somatosensory function evaluated by quantitative sensory testing (QST) may be responsible. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe somatosensory profiles in terms of hyper- and hypoesthesia in BCS with and without persistent pain using reference data from healthy controls. Second, QST parameters of BCS with and without pain were compared with those of healthy controls (i.e., a negative control group) and patients with fibromyalgia (i.e., a positive control group). METHODS: Participants (n = 128) were divided into four equal groups: healthy controls, BCS with persistent pain, BCS without persistent pain, and patients with fibromyalgia. Nine QST parameters were evaluated at the trunk and at a remote location. Somatosensory profiles were determined by Z-score transformation of QST data using normative data from healthy controls. RESULTS: At the trunk, compared to healthy controls, BCS with persistent pain exhibited sensory aberrations across five out of seven QST parameters: pressure pain threshold, mechanical detection, and thermal thresholds. Pain-free BCS showed similar sensory aberrations across the four QST parameters compared to healthy controls: mechanical detection and thermal thresholds. Temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: BCS with persistent pain exert aberrations in peripheral processing of nociceptive signals, heightened facilitation of nociceptive signals, and higher psychosocial burden when compared to pain-free BCS, healthy controls, and patients with fibromyalgia. SIGNIFICANCE: This study investigates the somatosensory function of breast cancer survivors with and without persistent pain using quantitative sensory testing and two control group (i.e., patients with fibromyalgia and healthy controls). Our results indicate somatosensory aberrations within the peripheral, but not central pathways in breast cancer survivors with persistent pain. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of the somatosensory mechanisms underlying persistent pain, which may inform future interventions to prevent the development of persistent pain, and improve treatment modalities.

Nociceptive, neuropathic, or nociplastic low back pain? The low back pain phenotyping (BACPAP) consortium's international and multidisciplinary consensus recommendations.

The potential to classify low back pain as being characterised by dominant nociceptive, neuropathic, or nociplastic mechanisms is a clinically relevant issue. Preliminary evidence suggests that these low back pain phenotypes might respond differently to treatments; however, more research must be done before making specific recommendations. Accordingly, the low back pain phenotyping (BACPAP) consortium was established as a group of 36 clinicians and researchers from 13 countries (five continents) and 29 institutions, to apply a modified Nominal Group Technique methodology to develop international and multidisciplinary consensus recommendations to provide guidance for identifying the dominant pain phenotype in patients with low back pain, and potentially adapt pain management strategies. The BACPAP consortium's recommendations are also intended to provide direction for future clinical research by building on the established clinical criteria for neuropathic and nociplastic pain. The BACPAP consortium's consensus recommendations are a necessary early step in the process to determine if personalised pain medicine based on pain phenotypes is feasible for low back pain management. Therefore, these recommendations are not ready to be implemented in clinical practice until additional evidence is generated that is specific to these low back pain phenotypes.

Effectiveness of pain neuroscience education on somatosensory functioning after surgery for breast cancer: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial.

Pain is one of the most prevalent and long-term adverse effects described by people who have undergone breast cancer surgery. Non-helpful perceptions and thoughts about pain may contribute to the transition of acute to persistent pain. Adding educational interventions to the current physical therapy program in this population may help to improve or prevent persistent pain. Pain neuroscience education (PNE) is a type of educational intervention that addresses the experience of pain in a broader sense by explaining pain not only from a biomedical perspective, but also from a psychological and social perspective. A double-blinded randomized controlled trial (EduCan trial) investigated whether PNE, in addition to a standard physiotherapy program immediately after surgery for breast cancer, was more effective on somatosensory functioning in the short (4 months postoperatively) and long term (18 months postoperatively), than providing a biomedical explanation for pain. Somatosensory functioning was evaluated using a self-reported questionnaire as well as a comprehensive quantitative sensory testing evaluation. The findings of this study revealed that adding six sessions of PNE to a standard physical therapy program (n = 184) did not result in a significantly different course of somatosensory functioning up to 18 months postoperatively as compared to biomedical pain education. These findings provide an interesting basis for future research into who should receive PNE after surgery for breast cancer (e.g., patient profiling or phenotyping) and how we can tailor it to the individual to increase its effectiveness.

Recommendations for the management of opioid-induced constipation - how to improve usability in clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid-induced constipation remains undertreated despite effective and safe treatment options exists. Previous guidelines have only been partially effective in improving management, possibly due to their complexity, and studies suggest that a simple setup of concise and behaviorally-orientated steps improves usability. AREAS COVERED: This article introduces the concept of opioid-induced constipation and provides an overview of existing guidelines in this field. We also propose simplified recommendations for managing opioid-induced constipation, derived from a synthesis of current guidelines and the principles of optimal guideline design theory. EXPERT OPINION: Despite standard treatment with laxatives and fluid intake in patients with opioid-induced constipation, escalation of treatment is often needed where µ-opioid receptor antagonists or newer medications such as lubiprostone, linaclotide, or prucalopride are used. Previous guidelines have not been used sufficiently and thus management of the condition is often insufficient. We therefore propose simplified recommendations to management, which we believe can come into broader use. It was validated in primary care for credibility, clarity, relevance, usability, and overall benefit. We believe that this initiative can lead to better management of the substantial proportion of patients suffering from side effects of opioids.

Returning to Work After Breast Cancer Surgery: A Randomised Controlled Trial on the Effect of Pain Neuroscience Education.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of pain neuroscience education compared to biomedical pain education after breast cancer surgery on (1) work status, (2) time until work resumption, and (3) change in return-to-work expectations up to 18 months post-surgery. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to either pain neuroscience education (intervention group) or biomedical pain education (control group) in addition to a standard physical therapy program after surgery for breast cancer. The first four months following surgery, one to two physiotherapy sessions and three educational sessions were scheduled. After, two educational sessions and two physiotherapy sessions were held at six and eight months postoperatively. All outcomes were assessed at four, six, eight, 12 and 18 months postoperatively. RESULTS: At 12 months, in the intervention group, 71% of the women returned to work compared to 53% in the control group (18% points difference, 95%CI:-0.1 to 35;p = 0.07). At 18 months, the differences decreased to 9% points, 95%CI:-26 to 7;p = 0.35). Neither time until work resumption (p = 0.46) nor change in estimation of own ability to return to work up to 18 months postoperatively (p = 0.21) significantly differed between both groups. CONCLUSION: No significant differences were found regarding return to work outcomes between women receiving pain neuroscience education versus biomedical pain education after breast cancer surgery. Further research is warranted to explore the potential role of pain neuroscience education in return-to-work interventions following breast cancer surgery.

Feasibility and pilot testing of a personalized eHealth intervention for pain science education and self-management for breast cancer survivors with persistent pain: a mixed-method study.

PURPOSE: Here, we describe the development and pilot study of a personalized eHealth intervention containing a pain science education program and self-management support strategies regarding pain and pain-related functioning in female survivors of breast cancer. First, we aimed to evaluate the eHealth intervention's acceptability, comprehensibility, and satisfaction; second, we aimed to assess its preliminary efficacy. METHODS: A mixed-method study design was used. Breast cancer survivors with persistent pain were recruited. After 6 weeks of engagement with the eHealth intervention, acceptability, comprehensibility, and satisfaction were measured quantitatively with a self-constructed questionnaire and described qualitatively using focus groups. A joint display was used to present the meta-interferences between data. Efficacy was assessed via mixed effects models with repeated measures (outcomes assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks). RESULTS: Twenty-nine women with persistent pain after breast cancer surgery participated. Overall, the eHealth program was well received and experienced as easy to use and helpful. The eHealth intervention seems useful as an adjunct to comprehensive cancer aftercare. Efficacy estimates suggested a significant improvement in pain-related functioning, physical functioning, and quality of life. CONCLUSION: A personalized eHealth intervention appears valuable for persistent pain management after breast cancer surgery. A large controlled clinical trial to determine effectiveness, and a full process evaluation, seems warranted.

Effect of pain neuroscience education after breast cancer surgery on pain, physical, and emotional functioning: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial (EduCan trial).

ABSTRACT: Pain is one of the most common and long-lasting side effects reported by women surgically treated for breast cancer. Educational interventions may optimize the current physical therapy modalities for pain prevention or relief in this population. Pain neuroscience education (PNE) is an educational intervention that explains the pain experience not only from a biomedical perspective but also the psychological and social factors that contribute to it. Through a double-blinded randomized controlled trial (EduCan trial) it was investigated if PNE, in addition to the standard physiotherapy program immediately after breast cancer surgery, was more effective over the course of 18 months postoperatively than providing a biomedical explanation for pain. Primary outcome was the change in pain-related disability (Pain Disability Index, 0-70) over 12 months. Secondary outcomes included change in pain intensity, upper limb function, physical activity level, and emotional functioning over 4, 6, 8, 12, and 18 months postoperatively. Multivariate linear models for repeated (longitudinal) measures were used to compare changes. Preoperative and postoperative moderators of the change in pain-related disability were also explored. Of 184 participants randomized, the mean (SD) age in the PNE and biomedical education group was 55.4 (11.5) and 55.2 (11.4) years, respectively. The change in pain-related disability from baseline to 12 months postoperatively did not differ between the 2 groups (PNE 4.22 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.40-7.03], biomedical 5.53 [95% CI: 2.74-8.32], difference in change -1.31 [95% CI: -5.28 to 2.65], P = 0.516). Similar results were observed for all secondary outcomes. Future research should explore whether a more patient-tailored intervention would yield better results.

Treating persistent pain after breast cancer: practice gaps and future directions.

This paper discusses the growing problem of persisting pain after successful treatment of breast cancer and presents recommendations for improving pain-related outcomes for this group. We discuss the dominant treatment approach for persisting pain post-breast cancer treatment and draw contrasts with contemporary treatment approaches to persistent pain in non-cancer-related populations. We discuss modern application of the biopsychosocial model of pain and the notion of variable sensitivity within the pain system, moment by moment and over time. We present the implications of increasing sensitivity over time for treatment selection and implementation. By drawing on transformative changes in treatment approaches to persistent non-cancer-related pain, we describe the potentially powerful role that an intervention called pain science education, which is now recommended in clinical guidelines for musculoskeletal pain, may play in improving pain and disability outcomes after successful breast cancer treatment. Finally, we present several research recommendations that centre around adaptation of the content and delivery models of contemporary pain science education, to the post-breast cancer context.

Questionnaire-based somatosensory profiling in breast cancer survivors: are we there yet? Associations between questionnaires and quantitative sensory testing.

PURPOSE: Pain and sensory disturbances are common side effects of breast cancer treatment. Differential somatosensory functioning may reflect distinct pathophysiological backgrounds and therapeutic needs. Aim was to examine whether questionnaires evaluating signs and symptoms related to somatosensory functioning correlate sufficiently with quantitative sensory testing (QST) in breast cancer survivors to warrant consideration for somatosensory profiling in clinical practice. METHODS: One year after breast cancer surgery, 147 women underwent QST and completed following questionnaires: Douleur Neuropathique en 4 questions (DN4), Central Sensitization Inventory, Margolis Pain Diagram and Visual Analog Scales (VAS). Associations between the questionnaires and QST were evaluated using Spearman correlation coefficients (rs). RESULTS: Significant but weak (rs < 0.30) correlations were found between total DN4 score and QST results at the inner upper arm for detection of sharp stimuli (rs = 0.227), cold stimuli (rs = -0.186), and painful heat stimuli (rs = 0.179), as well as between QST evaluating conditioned pain modulation and the Margolis Pain Diagram on one hand (rs = 0.176) and minimum-maximum pain intensity differences (VAS) on the other (rs = -0.170). CONCLUSION: Questionnaires evaluating signs and symptoms related to somatosensory functioning are insufficient for somatosensory profiling. Although somatosensory profiling may be valuable in a mechanism-based management, more research on the most appropriate clinical tools is needed.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONClinicians should be able to recognize that patients with persistent pain or sensory disturbances following breast cancer surgery may have a component of altered somatosensory processing as a significant contributor to their complaint in order to address it appropriately.Somatosensory profiling has yet to be implemented into clinical practice.No evidence-based recommendations can be made on the use of self-reported questionnaires to assess somatosensory processing in a breast cancer population based on the findings of this study.It is suggested to combine information on how individuals process and experience somatosensory stimulation with information from the patient interview or questionnaires to consider which biological, psychological and/or social factors may drive or sustain these neurophysiological processes.

The Dutch language version of the Pain Disability Index (PDI-DLV): psychometric properties in breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Pain after breast cancer surgery is a common and disabling problem. A reliable and valid questionnaire to assess pain-related disability is the Pain Disability Index (0-70). However, properties of the Dutch version (PDI-DLV) have never been investigated in this population. OBJECTIVE: To assess psychometric properties of the PDI-DLV after breast cancer surgery. METHODS: For reliability, relative and absolute reliability were calculated with a one-week test-retest interval, as well as internal consistency. Moreover, content and construct validity were examined to evaluate validity. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three women were included. Relative reliability was good (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.80). Standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change (absolute reliability) were 5.57 and 15.45 points, respectively. The mean difference between two measurements was -1.98 points, with 95% limits of agreement equal to 13.19 and -17.15. The within-subjects coefficient of variation was 59%. Internal consistency was confirmed (α = 0.87). The PDI-DLV was scored as understandable and complete (content validity). Construct validity was supported by confirmation of more than 75% of the tested hypotheses and of the one-factor model. CONCLUSION: The PDI-DLV is a valid questionnaire to assess pain-related disability 1 year after breast cancer surgery. Although absolute reliability is disputable, its good relative reliability allows evaluating changes between subjects.

Pain prevalence and characteristics in survivors of solid cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The latest systematic review on the prevalence of pain in cancer survivors was published 5 years ago. The current review aims to provide an extended overview on the prevalence of pain, pain mechanisms, pain characteristics, and assessment methods in cancer survivors. METHODS: A systematic research was conducted on 17th of April 2020 using MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane looking at studies from 2014 to 2020. Studies had to report pain prevalence rates in cancer survivors with a solid tumor who finished curative treatment at least 3 months ago. Methodological quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute quality appraisal tool. Characteristics of the included studies, participants and reported pain prevalence rates were extracted. The reported prevalence rates of the individual studies were pooled within a meta-analysis. Meta-regressions were performed to identify possible determinants of the pooled pain prevalence. RESULTS: After deduplication, 7300 articles were screened, after which 38 were included in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias was rated low in 26 articles and moderate in 12 articles. The pooled pain prevalence was 47% (95%CI 39-55), with a heterogeneity of 98.99%. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that nearly half of cancer survivors report pain after completing curative treatment at least 3 months ago. However, substantial unexplained heterogeneity warrants cautious interpretation of these results. Meta-regression using cancer type, treatment location, pain measurement, and follow-up time as a covariate could not explain influencing factors explaining the high heterogeneity.

Management of chronic low back pain and the impact on patients' personal and professional lives: Results from an international patient survey.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of chronic low back pain (CLBP) on patients' personal and professional lives, and management strategies applied to treat CLBP. METHODS: A 60-question survey was developed, and respondents from 16 countries with a self-reported physician's diagnosis of CLBP were recruited via an online market research survey panel. Respondents were stratified as having mild, moderate, or severe pain. Target sample sizes per country and for pain severity were set. Data were weighted according to the known population and prevalence of CLBP in each country and the number of respondents from that country. RESULTS: Results from 9642 CLBP patients indicated that almost a quarter of patients with severe CLBP report a psychological comorbidity. Prescription pain medications were more commonly used by patients with severe CLBP (56%) than those with mild (20%) or moderate (34%) CLBP. Among those with severe CLBP who had been prescribed pain medication, 58% were prescribed opioids, with 1 in 4 patients using opioids for more than 5 years. Patients were primarily managed by general practitioners/primary care physicians, physiotherapists, neurologists, or orthopedic surgeons. CLBP negatively impacted patients' daily activities, social lives, and work productivity. CONCLUSION: Chronic low back pain has pronounced effects on patients' personal relationships, ability to work, and daily living. Almost 1 in four patients with severe CLBP reported a psychological comorbidity. Adherence to guidelines appears inconsistent, which is noteworthy as a substantial subgroup of patients with severe CLBP had been prescribed opioid medication for more than 5 years. Improved education is required to support healthcare professionals (HCPs) in identifying and understanding the complex biopsychosocial needs of CLBP patients to optimize pain management and to encourage referral of CLBP patients to physiotherapists and psychologists.

Establishing Minimal Clinically Important Differences in Quality of Life Measures in Opioid-Induced Constipation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Opioids have a role in chronic pain management. However, opioid-induced constipation may cause patients to skip or reduce opioid doses, leading to inadequate pain relief and negatively impacting quality of life. We sought to establish a minimal clinically important difference to understand whether changes in quality of life scores are of value to patients. METHODS: Integrated data from the double-blind, controlled, phase 3 COMPOSE-1 and COMPOSE-2 trials of naldemedine in chronic noncancer pain and opioid-induced constipation were used to determine minimal clinically important differences using Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) and Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) questionnaires. Patients completed the questionnaires (5-point Likert scale; predose, Weeks 2, 4, and 12), kept a daily log of Bowel Movement and Constipation Assessment, and rated satisfaction at end of study. Minimal clinically important differences were computed using an anchor-based method with 6 anchors: 5 from the Bowel Movement and Constipation Assessment and 1 from patient satisfaction. Threshold values for each anchor were set to define responders versus nonresponders based on score definitions. Clinically meaningful cutoff values for changes in PAC-SYM and PAC-QOL scores were determined using receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Data from 1095 patients (549, naldemedine; 546, placebo) were analyzed. The area under the curve for the receiver operating characteristic curves (ranges, 0.719 to 0.798 for PAC-SYM and 0.734 to 0.833 for PAC-QOL) indicated that both instruments can discriminate responders and nonresponders for each anchor. PAC-SYM cutoff values ranged from -1.04 to -0.83; PAC-QOL cutoff values ranged from -0.93 to -0.82. CONCLUSIONS: Based on data derived from the anchor method, reductions in PAC-SYM and PAC-QOL scores of >1.0 in patients with chronic noncancer pain and opioid-induced constipation are clinically meaningful. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Registration: NCT01965158; NCT01993940.

Naldemedine Improves Patient-Reported Outcomes of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients with Chronic Non-Cancer Pain in the COMPOSE Phase 3 Studies.

OBJECTIVE: Opioid-induced constipation is among the most common side effects associated with opioid use in patients with chronic non-cancer pain, and it can have a significant negative impact on health-related quality of life (QOL). This analysis evaluated the effect of naldemedine 0.2 mg on patient-reported outcomes in three phase 3 clinical studies. METHODS: COMPOSE-1 and COMPOSE-2 were identical randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies of 12 weeks' duration, allowing data to be integrated (n=1095). COMPOSE-3 was similar in design, but of 52 weeks' duration (n=1241). Patients were adults with chronic non-cancer pain who had been treated with opioid analgesics for ≥3 months and experiencing opioid-induced constipation. Patient-reported outcomes included Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM; 12 questions assessed on a 5-point Likert scale), PAC-QOL (28 questions assessed on a 5-point Likert scale), and Subject Global Satisfaction (measured on a 7-point Likert scale). The proportion of patients achieving a ≥1.5 improvement in PAC-SYM and PAC-QOL was calculated. The correlation between change in PAC-SYM and PAC-QOL scores and frequency of bowel movements was also explored. RESULTS: The proportion of PAC-SYM and PAC-QOL responders was significantly higher for naldemedine than for placebo at all assessed time points in COMPOSE-1/COMPOSE-2 (p<0.005 for both) and COMPOSE-3 (p<0.005 and p<0.0001, respectively). There was a statistically significant correlation between improvement in PAC-SYM/PAC-QOL and frequency of bowel movements at all time points (p≤0.0002). The majority of patients treated with naldemedine reported markedly or moderately improved satisfaction with constipation and abdominal symptoms on the Subject Global Satisfaction questionnaire. DISCUSSION: Naldemedine treatment was associated with a rapid and sustained clinically relevant improvement in patient-reported outcomes, indicating improvement in opioid-induced constipation-related symptoms and QOL. CLINICALTRIALSGOV REGISTRATION: NCT01965158, NCT01993940, NCT01965652.