Miwa, Hiroto

ABSTRACT Background Opioids are indicated for pain that occurs with cancer and other disorders that become more prevalent with aging. The most prevalent and persistent adverse effect of opioid therapy is opioid‐induced constipation (OIC). OIC impairs patient quality of life (QoL) and leads to suboptimal pain management due to medication non‐adherence. Unlike other adverse effects, OIC persists and is not associated with pharmacological tolerance, necessitating long‐term management. Objectives The objective of this study is to evaluate current clinical strategies for OIC by comparing recommendations from American, European, and Japanese clinical guidelines. We reviewed the clinical evidence for the peripherally acting μ‐opioid receptor antagonist (PAMORA) naldemedine (the only PAMORA approved in Japan) and the rationale for early intervention in OIC. Methods The clinical guidelines and recent clinical trial data, including the COMPOSE program (phase III clinical trials of naldemedine for OIC in patients with chronic non‐cancer pain), were reviewed to establish an evidence‐based framework for the management of chronic cancer and non‐cancer pain. Results Conventional laxatives frequently provide inadequate relief as they address secondary symptoms rather than the underlying receptor‐mediated cause. PAMORAs (including naldemedine, methyl naltrexone, and naloxegol) antagonize gastrointestinal opioid receptors without compromising central analgesia. Early initiation of PAMORAs stabilizes bowel function and reduces the incidence of treatment‐related diarrhea that occurs when using conventional laxatives to treat OIC. Conclusion The 2023 Japanese guidelines advocate the proactive use of the PAMORA naldemedine as a primary treatment option. This mechanism‐based early intervention model offers a promising framework for optimizing QoL and implementing effective analgesia in an aging global population.

Objective Antireflux surgery can be proposed in patients with GORD, especially when proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use leads to incomplete symptom improvement. However, to date, international consensus guidelines on the clinical criteria and additional technical examinations used in patient selection for antireflux surgery are lacking. We aimed at generating key recommendations in the selection of patients for antireflux surgery. Design We included 35 international experts (gastroenterologists, surgeons and physiologists) in a Delphi process and developed 37 statements that were revised by the Consensus Group, to start the Delphi process. Three voting rounds followed where each statement was presented with the evidence summary. The panel indicated the degree of agreement for the statement. When 80% of the Consensus Group agreed (A+/A) with a statement, this was defined as consensus. All votes were mutually anonymous. Results Patients with heartburn with a satisfactory response to PPIs, patients with a hiatal hernia (HH), patients with oesophagitis Los Angeles (LA) grade B or higher and patients with Barrett’s oesophagus are good candidates for antireflux surgery. An endoscopy prior to antireflux surgery is mandatory and a barium swallow should be performed in patients with suspicion of a HH or short oesophagus. Oesophageal manometry is mandatory to rule out major motility disorders. Finally, oesophageal pH (±impedance) monitoring of PPI is mandatory to select patients for antireflux surgery, if endoscopy is negative for unequivocal reflux oesophagitis. Conclusion With the ICARUS guidelines, we generated key recommendations for selection of patients for antireflux surgery.