MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S0493 Subcutaneous Methylnaltrexone in Cancer and Non-Cancer Patients for Rapid Relief of Opioid-Induced Constipation

2020· article· en· W3093833285 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eric D. Shah, Bruce Chamberlain, Michelle Rhiner, Neal E. Slatkin, Nancy Stambler, Robert J. Israel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical endpointPlaceboConstipationOpioidLaxativeCancerNaltrexoneRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Rapid relief of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is often necessary in acute care settings for patients with cancer and chronic noncancer pain. Methylnaltrexone (MNTX) is the only FDA approved peripherally acting µ-receptor antagonist with a subcutaneous (SC) formulation for OIC. We report the ability of MNTX SC to achieve early rescue-free laxation (RFL) in advanced-illness OIC patients with and without cancer. METHODS: Two multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies (study 302 [NCT00402038] and study 4000 [NCT00672477]) were conducted in adults with advanced illness and OIC (>98% of whom were laxative refractory). In study 302, patients from 27 sites (26 US; 1 Canada) were randomized 1:1 to receive MNTX SC 0.15 mg/kg or placebo every other day for 2 weeks. In study 4000, patients from 48 US and international sites were randomized 1:1 to receive MNTX SC based on body weight (8 or 12 mg) or placebo for ≤7 doses for 14 days. Endpoints included the proportion of patients achieving RFL within 4 hours after the first dose (co-primary endpoint for study 302; endpoint for study 4000); the proportion of patients with an RFL within 4 hours for ≥2 of the first 4 doses (co-primary endpoint for study 302; primary endpoint for study 4000); changes from baseline in pain scores; and safety. Patients were stratified by active cancer versus noncancer. RFL response was analyzed by chi-square tests; the nominal significance level was 0.05, with no multiplicity adjustment. RESULTS: Study 302 included 78 cancer patients (MNTX n = 37; placebo n = 41) and 56 noncancer patients (MNTX n = 26; placebo n = 30). Study 4000 included 152 cancer patients (MNTX n = 79; placebo n = 73) and 78 noncancer patients (MNTX n = 37; placebo n = 41). In both studies, significantly greater proportions of patients treated with MNTX versus placebo achieved an RFL within 4 hours after the first dose among cancer and noncancer patients (Figure 1). Repeat dosing with MNTX SC also maintained bowel symptom response within 4 hours in both cohorts (Figure 2). No significant changes in pain scores were observed between treatment groups in either study . The most common adverse events were abdominal pain, flatulence, and nausea. CONCLUSION: In two individual studies, MNTX use effectively reduced OIC within 4 hours of the first dose and maintained bowel symptom response with repeat dosing in cancer and noncancer patients without affecting central opioid receptor mediated analgesia.Figure 1.: Patients achieving a rescue-free laxation within 4 hours of the first dose.Figure 2.: Repeat dosing with MNTX SC (RFL within 4 hours for ≥2 of the first 4 injections) maintained bowel symptom response in cancer and noncancer patients (ITT population).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicGastrointestinal motility and disorders→French-language works237,207→