Skip to main content
Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology logoLink to Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology
. 2015 Jun 18;6(6):e90. doi: 10.1038/ctg.2015.19

Genetic and Non-genetic Factors Associated With Constipation in Cancer Patients Receiving Opioids

Eivor A Laugsand 1,2,*, Frank Skorpen 3, Stein Kaasa 2,4, Rainer Sabatowski 5, Florian Strasser 6, Peter Fayers 2,7, Pål Klepstad 8,9
PMCID: PMC4816247  PMID: 26087058

Abstract

Objectives:

To examine whether the inter-individual variation in constipation among patients receiving opioids for cancer pain is associated with genetic or non-genetic factors.

Methods:

Cancer patients receiving opioids were included from 17 centers in 11 European countries. Intensity of constipation was reported by 1,568 patients on a four-point categorical scale. Non-genetic factors were included as covariates in stratified regression analyses on the association between constipation and 75 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within 15 candidate genes related to opioid- or constipation-signaling pathways (HTR3E, HTR4, HTR2A, TPH1, ADRA2A, CHRM3, TACR1, CCKAR, KIT, ARRB2, GHRL, ABCB1, COMT, OPRM1, and OPRD1).

Results:

The non-genetic factors significantly associated with constipation were type of laxative, mobility and place of care among patients receiving laxatives (N=806), in addition to Karnofsky performance status and presence of metastases among patients not receiving laxatives (N=762) (P<0.01). Age, gender, body mass index, cancer diagnosis, time on opioids, opioid dose, and type of opioid did not contribute to the inter-individual differences in constipation. Five SNPs, rs1800532 in TPH1, rs1799971 in OPRM1, rs4437575 in ABCB1, rs10802789 in CHRM3, and rs2020917 in COMT were associated with constipation (P<0.01). Only rs2020917 in COMT passed the Benjamini–Hochberg criterion for a 10% false discovery rate.

Conclusions:

Type of laxative, mobility, hospitalization, Karnofsky performance status, presence of metastases, and five SNPs within TPH1, OPRM1, ABCB1, CHRM3, and COMT may contribute to the variability in constipation among cancer patients treated with opioids. Knowledge of these factors may help to develop new therapies and to identify patients needing a more individualized approach to treatment.

INTRODUCTION

The inter-individual variation in analgesic response to opioids is well known. There is also a large inter-individual variability in constipation among both healthy volunteers1 and cancer patients receiving opioids.2 Constipation is a significant symptom among cancer patients receiving opioids, with prevalence rates ranging from 50 to 100% and with a potential to significantly impair the quality of life.3, 4, 5 There is substantial evidence suggesting that treatment of constipation in this population can and should be improved. Still, constipation remains poorly recognized and undertreated.6 Although laxatives are commonly prescribed, there is a surprising lack of evidence to guide the choice of treatment for the individual patient.7

Constipation results from a lack of coordination between motility, mucosal transport, and defecation reflexes.3, 8 In normal bowel function, these mechanisms are finely adjusted via the enteric nervous system and a variety of gastrointestinal hormones constituting an intricate interplay between agonists, antagonists and receptors.3, 8 Based on available information about function, physiology, and bowel dysfunction, genetic variants within genes encoding serotonin receptors and associated proteins (HTR3E,9, 10, 11, 12 HTR4,13 HTR2A,14, 15 and TPH116), α2 adrenergic receptors (ADRA2A14, 17), cholinergic receptors (CHRM318), substance P receptor (TACR114, 19, 20), cholecystokinin receptors (CCKAR18, 21, 22, 23), the ghrelin-obestatin preproprotein (GHRL24), and the proto-oncogene c-kit (KIT 25, 26) are candidates to influence the presence and intensity of constipation in cancer patients.

Administration of opioids influences the enteric nervous system signaling, delays gastric emptying and intestinal transit, reduce gastrointestinal motility by suppressing the excitability and neurotransmitter release from enteric musculomotor neurones, and inhibit secretion, leading to opioid-induced constipation.18 The interplay between opioids and bowel physiology is complex, but it has been shown that opioids and α2-adrenoceptor agonists have similar effects in the rat small intestine,17 that opioid agonists affect intestinal motility by modulating cholinergic transmission,18 inhibit release of substance P and block the presynaptic CCK-activated acetylcholine release.18, 19 Tryptophan hydroxylase 1 (TPH1) is known to increase in chronic constipation.16 Chronic morphine administration increase c-Kit expression in bowel fragments of rats.26 Selective 5-HT4 receptor agonists,13 5-HT2 receptor blockers and grehlin have been shown to improve opioid-induced constipation.15, 24 These observations in studies related to opioids and bowel function emphasize the potential influence of the candidate genes identified from factors involved in bowel function in general.

In addition to the genetic variants related to constipation mechanisms, genetic variants affecting the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of opioids may also lead to inter-individual variations in opioid response.27 Genetic variations within genes encoding proteins involved in absorption, transport (ABCB1, adenosine triphosphate-binding cassette, subfamily B, member 128, 29, 30, 31), metabolism (COMT, catechol-O-methyl transferase32, 33), elimination, receptor binding, and downstream signaling (OPRM1/K1/D1 opioid receptors3, 34 and ARRB2, β-arrestin34, 35, 36, 37) may contribute to the inter-individual variations in constipation during opioid treatment.3, 27

There is a lack of knowledge about the causes of inter-individual differences in constipation during opioid treatment, although the association with cancer diagnosis, factors associated with opioid therapy and putative factors influencing the pathogenesis of constipation have been studied previously.2, 5, 38, 39 Increasing age and female gender,4 overweight,40 lower Karnofsky performance status,39, 41, 42 hospitalization,38 longer time on opioids, higher opioid dose,5 certain opioid types,14, 43 certain cancer diagnoses,4 presence of metastases,38, 39 and reduced mobility42, 44 are all among the proposed risk factors. However, most of these factors were found not to be significantly associated with the inter-individual variation in constipation in a clinically relevant sample of cancer patients receiving opioids.2 Knowledge of factors associated with the variation in constipation may help to individualize treatment and avoid unnecessary patient suffering in the future. The present study aimed to identify possible genetic and non-genetic factors associated with the inter-individual variation in constipation among cancer patients receiving opioids.

METHODS

Patients

The European Pharmacogenetic Opioid Study included 2,294 patients receiving opioids for cancer pain, from 17 centers in 11 countries.45 Included patients were 18 years or older, had a verified diagnosis of malignant disease, agreed to give a blood sample and had received scheduled opioid treatment corresponding to step III at the WHO analgesic ladder for at least 3 days.46 Patients who lacked a basic proficiency of the language spoken in the study center were excluded. Because some chemotherapies cause constipation and others cause diarrhea,2 patients receiving chemotherapy were excluded (N=353). For the analyses of genetic association we also excluded non-Caucasians (N=47) and Greek patients (N=5) to minimize heterogeneity. Samples in which no genomic DNA was available (N=20) or where all genotyping failed (N=2) and patients not answering the question about constipation (N=299) were also excluded. Finally, as all patients receiving step III opioids should have laxatives prescribed according to guidelines, we analyzed those receiving laxatives (N=806) and those not receiving laxatives (N=762) separately, as we did not know the reason for lack of laxative prescription.

The study was approved by ethical committees at each study center or in each country before initialization and performed according to the rules of the Helsinki-declaration. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients before inclusion.

Patients reported constipation and their need to stay in bed or a chair during the day by answering the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30).47 The constipation intensity and extent of mobility during the past week were assessed on a four-point verbal rating scale with categories of “not at all, a little, quite a bit and very much”. The exact questions were: “Have you been constipated?” for constipation and “Do you need to stay in bed or a chair during the day?” for mobility. Whole blood was drawn for pharmacogenetic analyses.

As prevalence and intensity of constipation might also be influenced by a number of non-genetic factors,2, 4, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 these were also registered to be included as covariates in the analyses of genetic association. Health-care providers (physician or nurse) registered age, gender, body mass index (BMI), time since start of opioids (months), opioid dose (total oral morphine equivalent daily dose in mg), cancer diagnosis, presence of metastasis, type of laxatives used during the past 24 h, type of opioid, affiliation to department, and country. In addition, the providers assessed Karnofsky performance status,48 and cognitive function by the mini-mental state examination (MMSE).49

SNP selection, genotyping and quality control

Within 16 candidate genes, 88 putative single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected based on a combination of associations identified in literature, available information in databases,50, 51, 52, 53 their frequency, functionality and their interrelated distance (Supplementary Table 1 online). For SNP selection the SNP browser version 3.5 (Applied Biosciences, Foster City, CA, USA) was used to ensure that all selected SNPs had an expected allele frequency of 10% or more in Caucasians and that they were compatible with assay rules.

Isolation of genomic DNA from EDTA whole blood was performed at HUNT Biobank, Levanger, Norway by using the Gentra Puregene blood kit (QIAGEN Science, MA, USA). The SNPlex Genotyping Platform, including universal SNPlex System kits and reagents and SNP-specific ligation probes, was used (Applied Biosciences). Genotyping was performed according to the supplier's dry DNA protocol. The GeneMapper Software v4.0 (Applied Biosciences) and manual reading was used to analyze the SNPlex signals. Quality control and data cleaning was performed. Samples with low signals not separable from negative controls and samples in which <90% of SNPs were genotyped were removed prior to analysis and treated as missing data. SNPs with a callrate <90% and SNPs with inconsistent clustering on inspection were excluded from analyses.

Statistics

Collection and organization of data was performed by The Pain and Palliation Research Group, Norwegian University of Science and Technology. The statistical software STATA version 11.0 was used for all analyses (StataCorp. 2009 STATA Statistical Software: Release 11. College Station, TX, USA: StataCorp LP).

Genotype frequencies, allele frequency and carriage were determined and quality checked. SNPs in which no genotypes were recorded, SNPs where genotypes were not in Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (X2-test, P<0.0005) and SNPs with an observed minor allele frequency (MAF) <5% were rejected.

Univariate regressions (ordered logistic and linear) were performed to investigate the possible associations between non-genetic factors and intensity of constipation as reported in EORTC question 16. The factors explored were age, BMI, KPS, time on opioids, opioid dose, gender, type of laxative, mobility (as reported by EORTC question 4), type of opioid, department, metastases, and cancer diagnosis. Age, BMI, KPS, and opioid dose were analyzed both as continuous and as dichotomised variables (age ≤60 vs. >60, BMI <25 vs. ≥25, KPS ≤80 vs. >80, dose≤300 mg vs. >300 mg).5 All factors significantly (P<0.05) associated with constipation in univariate analyses were considered for inclusion as covariates in the stepwise multivariate analysis stratified by country. The identified non-genetic covariates were included in stratified multivariate regression analyses on the association between constipation and SNPs within the candidate genes related to the opioid- or constipation-signaling pathways (HTR3E, HTR4, HTR2A, TPH1, ADRA2A, CHRM3, TACR1, CCKAR, KIT, ARRB2, GHRL, ABCB1, COMT, OPRM1, OPRK1, and OPRD1). These ordered logistic regression analyses, with constipation as the dependent variable (scored 0 for “Not at all”, 1 for “A little”, 2 for “Quite a bit” and 3 for “Very much”) generated β-slopes. Analyses were also repeated without the inclusion of covariates as a sensitivity check. Unstratified analyses, not including covariates, were used to compare symptom intensity between those carrying the “risk” allele and those not.

To mitigate the issue of multiple testing we used a 10% false discovery rate reporting the Benjamini–Hochberg (BH) thresholds, the constipation question of EORTC was pre-specified as the primary outcome and the codominant genetic model was prespecified for the primary analyses (dominant, recessive and additive models were exploratory). P values <0.01 were interpreted as suggestive of effects that should be evaluated in future studies.

RESULTS

Patients

The demographic and disease-related characteristics of the 1,568 patients included in this study are shown in Table 1. Patients receiving laxatives were similar to those not receiving laxatives regarding age (mean 63 and 61 years), gender (59 and 49% male), BMI (24 and 23 kg/m2), KPS (60 and 63), mean MMSE total score,27 time since diagnosis (31 months), presence of metastases (86 and 80%), cancer diagnoses represented, and type of opioids prescribed. There were more out-patients among those not receiving laxatives (29%), as compared with patients receiving laxatives (13%). Almost 80% were on stable dosing of opioids in both groups. “Quite a bit” or “very much” constipation was reported by 58% of patients receiving laxatives as compared with 32% among those not receiving laxatives.

Table 1. Patient demographics.

  Laxatives (N=806)
No laxatives (N=762)
  Mean s.d. Mean s.d.
Age (years) 63.1 11.9 60.6 12.1
Body mass index (kg/m2) 23.8 4.6 23.3 4.6
Karnofsky performance status (range 0–100) 60.0 16.2 62.7 16.6
Mini mental state, total score (range 0–30) 26.7 3.5 27.2 3.0
Time since diagnosis (months) 31.1 44.8 30.6 44.2
         
  N % N %
Gender
 Female 333 41.3 390 51.2
 Male 473 58.7 372 48.8
         
Department
 Palliative care unit/hospice 272 33.7 226 29.7
 General oncology ward 424 52.6 278 36.5
 Surgical ward 7 0.9 35 4.6
 Out-patients 103 12.8 223 29.3
         
Status of opioid treatment
 Opioid recently initiated/titration 158 19.6 140 18.4
 Stable dosing 642 79.7 616 80.8
         
Metastases
 None 114 14.1 156 20.5
 One or more 692 85.9 606 79.5
         
Cancer diagnosis
 Breast 88 10.9 81 10.6
 Female reproductive organs 48 6.0 79 10.4
 Gastrointestinal 140 17.4 192 25.2
 Hematological 38 4.7 39 5.1
 Head and neck 34 4.2 62 8.1
 Lung 173 21.5 113 14.8
 Prostate 131 16.3 60 7.9
 Urological 60 7.4 53 7.0
 Other or unknown 128 15.9 114 15.0
         
Type of opioid
 Morphine 366 45.4 254 33.3
 Oxycodone 189 23.4 144 18.9
 Fentanyl 174 21.6 277 36.4
 Other 77 9.6 87 11.4
         
Country
 Denmark 10 1.2 18 2.4
 Finland 8 1.0 17 2.2
 Germany 111 13.8 128 16.8
 Iceland 65 8.1 50 6.6
 Italy 116 14.4 191 25.1
 Lithuania 0 0 41 5.4
 Norway 271 33.6 130 17.1
 Sweden 29 3.6 78 10.2
 Switzerland 64 7.9 20 2.6
 United Kingdom 132 16.4 89 11.7
         
Laxative treatment
 Bulk 376 46.7    
 Stimulant 175 21.7    
 Combination and/or other 253 31.4    
         
EORTC 16 Constipation
 Not at all 160 19.9 327 42.9
 A little 180 22.3 194 25.5
 Quite a bit 233 28.9 153 20.1
 Very much 233 28.9 88 11.5

EORTC 16, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Question number 16.

Association with non-genetic factors

In the univariate analyses, the results of ordered logistic and linear regressions were consistent. Five of the non-genetic factors were considered as significantly associated with the intensity of constipation (Table 2). These were type of laxative, mobility as measured by EORTC question 4 and whether the patient was an outpatient or admitted to a hospital among patients receiving laxatives (all P<0.001). Karnofsky performance status (P=0.002) and presence of metastases (P=0.006) were associated with intensity of constipation among patients not receiving laxatives. In addition, the covariate “total daily opioid dose (mg)” had a P value of 0.024 in univariate analyses among patients treated with laxatives (Table 2). But as this covariate had coefficients that were not very consistent and reliable, was not a covariate among those not receiving laxatives and was not strongly prognostic when included in multivariate analyses (those underlying Table 3), it was dropped for further analyses (see also Supplementary Table 2). The five significant factors were included as covariates in the multivariate regressions of genetic factors. The distributions of the responses for the EORTC constipation score in relation to the identified non-genetic factors are reported in Table 3.

Table 2. Non-genetic factors associated with constipation in univariate analyses.

  Receiving laxatives (N=806)
No laxatives (N=762)
  β 95% CI P β 95% CI P
Age (years)            
≤ 60 (0) 0.003 −0.003 to 0.009 0.339 0.004 −0.002 to 0.010 0.187
>60 (1) 0.084 −0.070 to 0.239 0.284 0.115 −0.033 to 0.264 0.128
             
BMI (kg/m2)            
<25 (0) −0.007 −0.024 to 0.010 0.402 −0.000 −0.016 to 0.016 0.997
≥25 (1) 0.022 −0.141 to 0.185 0.794 −0.066 −0.228 to 0.096 0.424
             
KPS (range 0–100)            
≤ 80 (0) −0.001 −0.005 to 0.004 0.776 −0.003 −0.008 to 0.001 0.171
>80 (1) −0.381 −0.763 to −0.000 0.050 −0.457 −0.750 to −0.164 0.002
             
Time since start opioids −0.048 −0.106 to 0.010 0.108 0.048 −0.009 to 0.104 0.101
Total daily dose (g) 0.141 −0.264 to −0.019 0.024 0.148 −0.033 to 0.328 0.109
             
Gender
Male (0), female (1) 0.104 −0.050 to 0.258 0.185 −0.079 −0.228 to 0.070 0.298
             
Type of opoid
Morphine (0=no, 1=yes), oxycodone (0=no, 1=yes), fentanyl (0=no, 1=yes), other (0=no, 1=yes) −0.042 −0.277 to 0.193 0.725 −0.138 −0.315 to 0.039 0.127
 
Metastases
None (0), ≥ one (1) 0.167 −0.049 to 0.382 0.129 0.259 0.076 to 0.441 0.006
             
Cancer diagnosis            
Other (0), gastrointestinal or female reproductive organs (1) −0.116 −0.295 to 0.063 0.203 −0.096 −0.252 to 0.059 0.225
 
Laxative treatment
Bulk (0=no, 1=yes), stimulant (0=no, 1=yes), combination and/or other (0=no, 1=yes) 0.212 0.126 to 0.297 <0.001      
 
Reduced mobility
Not at all, a little, quite a bit, very much 0.178 0.100 to 0.256 <0.001 −0.001 −0.077 to 0.075 0.979
 
Department
Outpatient (0), hospitalized (1) 0.533 0.309 to 0.757 <0.001 −0.079 −0.242 to 0.085 0.345

BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; KPS, Karnofsky performance status.

Results of linear regression. The results of ordered logistic regression (not shown) were closely similar. The dependent variable, constipation, was scored as 0 for “Not at all”, 1 for “A little”, 2 for “Quite a bit”, and 3 for “Very much”. Note: analyses were stratified by country. Age, BMI, and KPS were investigated both as continuous and as dichotomous variables.

Table 3. Non-genetic factors associated with constipation in multivariate analyses.

  Receiving laxatives (N=806)
  No laxatives (N=762)
 
  Not at all
A little
Quite a bit
Very much
Total   Not at all
A little
Quite a bit
Very much
Total  
  N % N % N % N % N β 95% CI P N % N % N % N % N β 95% CI P
KPS (range 0–100)                                       0.536
 ≤80 (0)                     299 42 176 25 147 21 88 12 710 0.318–0.906
 >80 (1)                     28 54 18 35 6 12 0 0 52 0.020
                                         
Metastases                                       1.599
 None (0)                     86 55 33 21 22 14 15 10 156 1.139–2.243
 ≥ one (1)                     241 40 161 27 131 22 73 12 606 0.007
                                         
Laxative treatment                                        
 Bulk 88 23 98 26 96 26 94 25 376 0.426                    
 Stimulant 34 19 42 24 66 38 33 19 175 0.273–0.579                    
 Combination/other 38 15 39 15 71 28 105 42 253 <0.001                    
                                         
Reduced mobility                                        
 Not at all 27 36 23 30 15 20 11 14 76 0.272                    
 A little 42 25 34 20 39 23 52 31 167 0.134–0.409                    
 Quite a bit 43 15 69 25 95 34 73 26 280 <0.001                    
 Very much 48 17 53 19 82 29 97 35 280                      
                                         
Department                   0.906                    
 Outpatient (0) 34 33 29 28 25 24 15 15 103 0.524–1.287                    
 Hospitalized (1) 126 18 151 21 208 30 218 31 703 <0.001                    

BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; KPS, Karnofsky performance status.

Results of linear regression. The results of ordered logistic regression (not shown) were closely similar. The dependent variable, constipation, was scored as 0 for “Not at all”, 1 for “A little”, 2 for “Quite a bit”, and 3 for “Very much”. Because of a few missing values, some counts does not add up to 100%.

Genotype distributions

The success rates of genotyping and frequencies of genotypes and alleles are shown in Supplementary Table 1 online. Out of the 88 candidate SNPs, 13 were excluded from analyses because of deviation from the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium or a low observed MAF (< 5%). These were rs34826744 in HTR4, rs13306143 and rs3750625 in ADRA2A, rs2237037 in KIT, rs16954146, and rs7208257 in ARRB2, rs34911341 in GHRL, rs1202181 in ABCB1, rs7815824 in OPRK1, rs1042114, rs204048, rs2234918, and rs204076 in OPRD1. The remaining 75 SNPs were further analyzed.

Association with genetic factors

The non-genetic risk factors identified as statistically significant in Tables 2 and 3 were included in the multivariate analysis underlying Tables 4 and 5, where significant non-genetic risk factors were combined with genetic risk factors in a multivariable model. As shown in Table 4, the genetic factors associated with constipation among patients receiving laxatives were rs1800532 within TPH1 in a codominant model, rs1799971 within OPRM1 in additive and dominant models, as well as rs4437575 within ABCB1 and rs10802789 within CHRM3 in a dominant model (P<0.01). None of these associations passed the BH criterion for a 10% false discovery rate. As shown in Table 5, the genetic factor associated with constipation among patients not receiving laxatives was rs2020917 within COMT in a codominant model. This association passed the BH criterion for a 10% false discovery rate.

Table 4. Genetic factors possibly associated with constipation among patients receiving laxatives (N=806).

Gene Genotype Absolute number of patients
Multivariate analysis
P value allelesa
SNP Allele Not at all
A little
Quite a bit
Very much
Total OR 95% CI Pb Model  
    N % N % N % N %            
TPH1
 rs1800532 AA 26 20 21 16 36 27 48 37 131          
  AC 85 22 93 25 101 27 99 26 378 1.457 1.126–1.885 0.004 Codominant  
  CC 42 16 59 22 87 33 79 30 267          
  C 127 20 152 24 188 29 178 28 645         0.094
  Not C 26 20 21 16 36 27 48 37 131          
                               
OPRM1
 rs1799971 AA 84 17 97 20 150 31 152 31 483 0.664 0.500–0.882 0.005 Additive  
  AG 35 22 44 28 40 26 37 24 156 1.523 1.110–2.090 0.009 Dominant  
  GG 2 25 3 38 2 25 1 13 8          
  G 37 23 47 29 42 26 38 23 164         0.005
  Not G 84 17 97 20 150 31 152 31 483          
                               
ABCB1
 rs4437575 AA 60 24 60 24 64 26 65 26 249 0.687 0.520–0.908 0.008 Dominant  
  AG 64 17 92 24 117 31 107 28 380          
  GG 31 20 23 15 46 30 53 35 153          
  G 95 18 115 22 163 31 160 30 533         0.028
  Not G 60 24 60 24 64 26 65 26 249          
                               
CHRM3
 rs10802789 CC 46 22 52 25 61 30 46 22 205 0.667 0.497–0.896 0.007 Dominant  
  CT 53 16 75 23 102 31 101 31 331          
  TT 25 18 31 23 38 28 42 31 136          
  T 78 17 106 23 140 30 143 31 467         0.013
  Not T 46 22 52 25 61 30 46 22 205          
                               
COMT
 rs2020917 CC 55 17 66 20 100 31 103 32 324          
  CT 59 22 60 23 77 29 69 26 265 1.202 0.903–1.601 0.207 Codominant  
  TT 9 15 19 32 14 24 17 29 59          
  T 68 21 79 24 91 28 86 27 324         0.042
  Not T 55 17 66 20 100 31 103 32 324          

CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; SNP, single-nucleotide polymorphism.

The odds ratios are from ordered logistic regression with constipation as the dependent variable, scored as 0 for “Not at all”, 1 for “A little”, 2 for “Quite a bit”, and 3 for “Very much”. Because of a few missing values, some counts does not add up to 100%.

a

P value of unstratified analyses without the inclusion of covariates.

b

P values of ordered logistic regression in the analyses allowing for covariates and stratified by country.

Table 5. Genetic factors possibly associated with constipation among patients not receiving laxatives (N=762).

Gene Genotype Absolute number of patients (%)
Multivariate analysis
P value allelesa
SNP Allele Not at all
A little
Quite a bit
Very much
Total OR 95% CI Pb Model  
    N % N % N % N %            
TPH1
 rs1800532 AA 40 38 28 27 20 19 17 16 105          
  AC 158 43 91 25 72 20 44 12 365 1.009 0.775–1.315 0.945 Codominant  
  CC 120 44 68 25 59 22 25 9 272          
  C 278 44 159 25 131 21 69 11 637         0.209
  Not C 40 38 28 27 20 19 17 16 105          
                               
OPRM1
 rs1799971 AA 207 42 129 26 106 21 56 11 498 1.013 0.758–1.353 0.932 Additive  
  AG 50 41 27 22 31 25 15 12 123 0.960 0.676–1.363 0.820 Dominant  
  GG 6 40 5 33 3 20 1 7 15          
  G 56 41 32 23 34 25 16 12 138         0.632
  Not G 207 42 129 26 106 21 56 11 498          
                               
ABCB1
 rs4437575 AA 102 46 48 22 48 22 23 10 221          
  AG 147 39 98 26 81 22 47 13 373 0.867 0.645–1.165 0.345 Dominant  
  GG 71 47 41 27 23 15 16 11 151          
  G 281 54 139 27 104 20 63 12 524         0.425
  Not G 102 46 48 22 48 22 23 10 221          
                               
CHRM3
 rs10802789 CC 80 41 50 26 38 19 28 14 196          
  CT 131 46 69 24 54 19 32 11 286 1.119 0.816–1.534 0.484 Dominant  
  TT 46 42 25 23 26 24 12 11 109          
  T 177 45 94 24 80 20 44 11 395         0.321
  Not T 80 41 50 26 38 19 28 14 196          
                               
COMT
 rs2020917 CC 143 47 70 23 64 21 28 9 305 0.606 0.454–0.809 <0.001 Codominant  
  CT 100 35 78 27 66 23 42 15 286          
  TT 27 55 11 22 9 18 2 4 49          
  T 127 38 89 27 75 22 44 13 335         0.024
  Not T 143 47 70 23 64 21 28 9 305          

CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; SNP, single-nucleotide polymorphism.

The odds ratios are from ordered logistic regression with constipation as the dependent variable, scored as 0 for “Not at all”, 1 for “A little”, 2 for “Quite a bit”, and 3 for “Very much”. Because of a few missing values, some counts does not add up to 100%.

a

P value of unstratified analyses without the inclusion of covariates

b

P values of ordered logistic regression in the analyses allowing for covariates and stratified by country. Associations in bold passed the Benjamini–Hochberg criterion for selection requiring a 10% false discovery rate correction for multiple testing.

More patients reported “quite a bit” or “very much” constipation among those not carrying the C-allele of rs1800532 in TPH1 (64%) and those not carrying the G-allele of rs1799971 in OPRM1 (63%). More patients reported “quite a bit” or “very much” constipation among those carrying the G-allele of rs4437575 in ABCB1 (61%), the T-allele of rs10802789 in CHRM3 (60%) or the T-allele of rs2020917 in COMT (36%).

DISCUSSION

The inter-individual differences in constipation among patients receiving opioids are associated with the type of laxative administered, level of mobility, place of care, Karnofsky performance status, presence of metastases and five polymorphisms within TPH1, OPRM1, ABCB1, CHRM3, and COMT (P<0.01).

The characteristics of included patients (Table 1) were as expected for cancer patients.54 We found that 58% of patients receiving laxatives and 32% of patients not receiving laxatives reported “quite a bit” or “very much” constipation. These numbers indicate the large inter-individual variation in constipation among cancer patients receiving opioids, with some patients being constipated despite optimized treatment with laxatives and some not experiencing constipation despite high doses of opioids.55

In agreement with other studies we observed that type of laxative,56, 57 hospitalization,38 reduced mobility,42, 44 Karnofsky performance status,41, 42 and presence of metastases38 influence whether a cancer patient report to experience constipation when receiving opioids.

The results of our study indicate that polymorphisms within TPH1 may contribute to the inter-individual variations in constipation. Tryptophan hydroxylase (TPH) is the rate-limiting enzyme in enterochromaffin (EC) cell 5-HT biosynthesis. Following luminal chemical and mechanical signals, the EC-cells release 5-HT, which stimulates 5-HT3 and 5-HT4 receptors on primary afferent neurons, inducing secretomotor and peristaltic reflexes of the intestines.58 A common TPH1 proximal promoter variant (rs7130929, −347C>A) has been associated with the diarrheal subtype of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).59 Because of the distance to polymorphism rs1800532 (also known as 218A>C, located in intron 7) it is difficult to compare the findings of this study with ours. A study among female, Caucasian IBS patients found no association between the diagnosis and five SNPs, including the rs1800532.60

Our findings suggest that polymorphisms within OPRM1 may be associated with intensity of constipation in cancer patients receiving opioids. The non-synonymous SNP rs1799971 in exon 1 (118A>G, Asp40Asn) has repeatedly demonstrated a functional effect.61 The effect on analgesia and pain sensitivity is extensively studied, with carriers of the minor 118G allele having a decreased analgesic response to morphine and M6G.27 Interestingly, only a few of the 118A>G-studies have addressed the association with intensity of constipation and no effect was found.27 However, in these studies, constipation was only measured as a secondary outcome. In the preclinical setting carriage of the 118G allele is associated with lower levels of mu-opioid receptor mRNA and protein, higher potency and mu-opioid receptor affinity for beta-endorphin and lower potency for exogenous opioids.61 Clinically, carriage of the 118G allele is associated with higher sensitivity to pain, a need for higher opioid doses to reach analgesic effect and an unchanged or lower risk of opioid-related side effects.61 In agreement with this, we found that more patients reported “quite a bit” or “very much” constipation among those not carrying the G-allele of 118A>G.

Polymorphisms within the ABCB1 gene (also known as MDR1) may influence intensity of constipation as the product of this gene, P-glycoprotein, is a transporter of many drugs, including opioids. As for OPRM1, there are many studies addressing the influence of ABCB1-polymorphisms on pain sensitivity and opioid analgesia, but only a few on associations with opioid effects other than analgesia.27 In a study prospectively recruiting 228 cancer patients receiving morphine, genetic variation in the ABCB1 gene was associated with drowsiness, confusion, and hallucination.62 No such association was observed with constipation. The polymorphism rs4437575 investigated in our study is located within the same haploblock as the more known 3435C>T in exon 26 (rs1045642). In the present study more patients reported “quite a bit” or “very much” constipation among those carrying the minor G-allele of rs4437575. This finding is as expected, considering the strong linkage between rs4437575 and rs1045642, where carriage of the minor T-allele in the latter SNP is associated with more opioid-related side effects.63

The results also indicated possible associations between SNPs in CHRM3 and constipation in cancer patients receiving opioids. Cholinergic muscarine receptor 3 (CHRM3) is found in the intestinal wall,64 and CHRM3 antagonists have been shown to inhibit intestinal motility.65 Genetic variation within the CHRM3 gene (rs3738435) has been tested for an association with IBS and specifically for an association with the constipation subtype, but no such associations were found.66 The SNP rs10802789, also known as c.-249-8806C > T, has been associated with intensity of nausea/vomiting in a previous study.67 To our knowledge, the exact functional consequence of this polymorphism is still unknown.

The association between constipation and rs2020917 in COMT among cancer patients not receiving laxatives passed the BH criterion. More patients reported “quite a bit” or “very much” constipation among those carrying the T-allele of rs2020917 in COMT (36%). The variant rs2020917 is located in the 5′ regulatory promoter of the membrane-bound-COMT isoform and it has been shown to alter nuclear protein binding patterns, thereby upregulating transcription and possibly increasing COMT enzyme activity.68 On the contrary, it has also been demonstrated that the haploblock containing the T-allele of rs2020917 and the C-allele of the nearby rs737865 is associated with reduced COMT-transcription.69 Decreased enzyme-activity, as coded by the Met-allele of the Val158Met (rs4680) variant has been associated with enhanced activation of dopaminergic neurotransmission and lower opioid-dose requirement.70 In animal models, chronic activation of dopaminergic neurotransmission reduces the neuronal content of enkephalin peptides,71 leading to an upregulation of mu-opioid receptors.72 Taken together, our finding agrees with the existing literature on lower opioid-dose requirements and possibly increased adverse effects associated with reduced COMT-transcription and enzyme-activity.

There are several challenges of candidate gene association research, and we recognize some in the present study. First, there is a lack of a stringent definition of constipation among cancer patients receiving opioids. Hence, comparison of results between studies is difficult and there is no agreement on definition of the phenotype.73 This study, including more patients than other studies addressing genetic variability related to opioid effects, utilized the EORTC QLQ-C30, a well-validated assessment tool, formally translated into many languages to define the phenotype. Other studies may also include objective measures such as number of stools and similar outcomes. Second, symptom intensity was registered for the past week, whereas administration of laxatives was registered for the past 24 h. However, we believe use of laxatives was related to symptom intensity as assessments for the past 24 h and the past week are closely related in cancer patients.74 Third, this study did not take into consideration gene–gene interactions, gene–environment interactions or epigenetics. However, genetic features in favor of the present study are that genes and polymorphisms were chosen based on known biology and pathophysiology, population stratification was avoided by only including Caucasians, measures have been undertaken to control for false positive findings, more than a few candidate SNPs were included in the analyses, and potential clinical confounding factors were identified and included in the analyses. Finally, as no replication sample was included, the findings should be repeated in an independent study before the associations could be regarded as conclusive.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that type of laxative, mobility, hospitalization, Karnofsky performance status, presence of metastases and five SNPs within TPH1, OPRM1, ABCB1, CHRM3, and COMT are associated with the variability in constipation among cancer patients treated with opioids (P<0.01). Only rs2020917 in COMT passed the BH criterion for a 10% false discovery rate. Genetic associations can be helpful to elucidate the relevant biological mechanisms for constipation in patients treated with opioids. These biological mechanisms can therefore be identified as targets for developing new and improved therapy for constipation in patients receiving opioids. Before introduction of genetic testing in routine patient care, large prospective studies are needed to determine whether genetic testing of polymorphisms helps to predict the risk and treatment of constipation among cancer patients receiving opioids, and whether this is a cost-effective approach.

Study Highlights

graphic file with name ctg201519i1.jpg

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all the researchers involved in The European Pharmacogenetic Opioid Study (EPOS) and to Gunnhild Jakobsen who organized the collection of data.

Guarantor of the article: Eivor A. Laugsand, MD, PhD.

Specific author contributions: All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study, interpreted the data, revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content and approved the final version. E.A.L. drafted the manuscript.

Financial support: This study was supported by grants from the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative (EPCRC), the European Commission's Sixth Framework Programme, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and the Research Council of Norway.

Potential competing interests: None.

Footnotes

Supplementary Information accompanies this paper on the Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology website (http://www.nature.com/ctg)

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Table 1
Supplementary Table 2

References

  1. Sykes NP. A volunteer model for the comparison of laxatives in opioid-related constipation. J Pain Symptom Manage 1996; 11: 363–369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Droney J, Ross J, Gretton S et al. Constipation in cancer patients on morphine. Support Care Cancer 2008; 16: 453–459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Kurz A, Sessler DI. Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction: pathophysiology and potential new therapies. Drugs 2003; 63: 649–671. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Mancini IL, Hanson J, Neumann CM et al. Opioid type and other clinical predictors of laxative dose in advanced cancer patients: a retrospective study. J Palliat Med 2000; 3: 49–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Clark K, Smith JM, Currow DC. The prevalence of bowel problems reported in a palliative care population. J Pain Symptom Manage 2012; 43: 993–1000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Laugsand EA, Jakobsen G, Kaasa S et al. Inadequate symptom control in advanced cancer patients across Europe. Support Care Cancer 2011; 19: 2005–2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Miles CL, Fellowes D, Goodman ML et al. Laxatives for the management of constipation in palliative care patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; CD003448. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Mancini I, Bruera E. Constipation in advanced cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 1998; 6: 356–364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Sanger GJ. 5-hydroxytryptamine and the gastrointestinal tract: where next? Trends Pharmacol Sci 2008; 29: 465–471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Niesler B, Frank B, Kapeller J et al. Cloning, physical mapping and expression analysis of the human 5-HT3 serotonin receptor-like genes HTR3C, HTR3D and HTR3E. Gene 2003; 310: 101–111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Wouters MM, Farrugia G, Schemann M. 5-HT receptors on interstitial cells of Cajal, smooth muscle and enteric nerves. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2007; 19: 5–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kapeller J, Houghton LA, Moennikes H et al. First evidence for an association of a functional variant in the microRNA-510 target site of the serotonin receptor-type 3E gene with diarrhea predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Hum Mol Genet 2008; 17: 2967–2977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Moulin DE, Rykx A, Kerstens R et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate efficacy and safety of prucalopride (Resolor (R)) in patients with opioid-induced. Gastroenterology 2008; 134: A92–A92. [Google Scholar]
  14. DeLuca A, Coupar IM. Insights into opioid action in the intestinal tract. Pharmacol Therapeut 1996; 69: 103–115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dhasmana KM, Banerjee AK, Faithfull NS et al. Role of 5-hydroxytryptamine receptors to narcotic-induced reduction in gastrointestinal transit in rats. Zhongguo Yao Li Xue Bao 1986; 7: 499–503. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Costedio MM, Coates MD, Brooks EM et al. Mucosal serotonin signaling is altered in chronic constipation but not in opiate-induced constipation. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1173–1180. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hikasa Y, Akiba T, Iino Y et al. Central alpha-adrenoceptor subtypes involved in the emetic pathway in cats. Eur J Pharmacol 1992; 229: 241–251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Wood JD, Galligan JJ. Function of opioids in the enteric nervous system. Neurogastroent Motil 2004; 16 (Suppl 2): 17–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Garzon J, Hollt V, Herz A. Cholecystokinin octapeptide activates an opioid mechanism in the guinea-pig ileum: a possible role for substance P. Eur J Pharmacol 1987; 136: 361–370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Garcia-Barcelo M, King SK, Miao XP et al. Application of HapMap data to the evaluation of 8 candidate genes for pediatric slow transit constipation. J Pediatr Surg 2007; 42: 666–671. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Wiesenfeld-Hallin Z, de Arauja Lucas G, Alster P et al. Cholecystokinin/opioid interactions. Brain Res 1999; 848: 78–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Galligan JJ, Vanner S. Basic and clinical pharmacology of new motility promoting agents. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2005; 17: 643–653. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Cremonini F, Camilleri M, McKinzie S et al. Effect of CCK-1 antagonist, dexloxiglumide, in female patients with irritable bowel syndrome: a pharmacodynamic and pharmacogenomic study. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 652–663. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Poitras P, Polvino WJ, Rocheleau B. Gastrokinetic effect of ghrelin analog RC-1139 in the rat: effect on post-operative and on morphine induced ileus. Peptides 2005; 26: 1598–1601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Tong WD, Liu BH, Zhang LY et al. Analysis of the c-kit gene in patients with slow transit constipation. Gut 2006; 55: 1207–1208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Banach T, Zurowski D, Gil K et al. Peripheral mechanisms of intestinal dysmotility in the morphine tolerant and dependent rats. J Physiol Pharmacol 2006; 57: 73–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Skorpen F, Laugsand EA, Klepstad P et al. Variable response to opioid treatment: any genetic predictors within sight? Palliat Med 2008; 22: 310–327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Campa D, Gioia A, Tomei A et al. Association of ABCB1/MDR1 and OPRM1 gene polymorphisms with morphine pain relief. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008; 83: 559–566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Coulbault L, Beaussier M, Verstuyft C et al. Environmental and genetic factors associated with morphine response in the postoperative period. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2006; 79: 316–324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Fujita K-I, Ando Y, Yamamoto W et al. Association of UGT2B7 and ABCB1 genotypes with morphine-induced adverse drug reactions in Japanese patients with cancer. Cancer Chemoth Pharm 2010; 65: 251–258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Oostenbrug LE, Dijkstra G, Nolte IM et al. Absence of association between the multidrug resistance (MDR1) gene and inflammatory bowel disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 2006; 41: 1174–1182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Rakvag TT, Klepstad P, Baar C et al. The Val158Met polymorphism of the human catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene may influence morphine requirements in cancer pain patients. Pain 2005; 116: 73–78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Obayashi K, Olsson M, Anan I et al. Impact of serotonin transporter and catechol-O-methyl transferase genes polymorphism on gastrointestinal dysfunction in Swedish and Japanese familial amyloidotic polyneuropathy patients. Clin Chim Acta 2008; 398: 10–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Bohn LM, Raehal KM. Opioid receptor signaling: relevance for gastrointestinal therapy. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2006; 6: 559–563. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Raehal KM, Bohn LM. Mu opioid receptor regulation and opiate responsiveness. AAPS J 2005; 7: E587–E591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Raehal KM, Walker JK, Bohn LM. Morphine side effects in beta-arrestin 2 knockout mice. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2005; 314: 1195–1201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Pineyro G, Archer-Lahlou E. Ligand-specific receptor states: implications for opiate receptor signalling and regulation. Cell Signal 2007; 19: 8–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Johnsen AT, Petersen MA, Pedersen L et al. Symptoms and problems in a nationally representative sample of advanced cancer patients. Palliative Med 2009; 23: 491–501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Jordhoy MS, Fayers P, Loge JH et al. Quality of life in advanced cancer patients: the impact of sociodemographic and medical characteristics. Brit J Cancer 2001; 85: 1478–1485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Pourhoseingholi MA, Kaboli SA, Pourhoseingholi A et al. Obesity and functional constipation; a community-based study in Iran. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2009; 18: 151–155. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Fallon MT, Hanks GW. Morphine, constipation and performance status in advanced cancer patients. Palliat Med 1999; 13: 159–160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Bennett M, Cresswell H. Factors influencing constipation in advanced cancer patients: a prospective study of opioid dose, dantron dose and physical functioning. Palliat Med 2003; 17: 418–422. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Ahmedzai S, Brooks D. Transdermal fentanyl versus sustained-release oral morphine in cancer pain: preference, efficacy, and quality of life. The TTS-Fentanyl Comparative Trial Group. J Pain Symptom Manag 1997; 13: 254–261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Tamayo AC, Diaz-Zuluaga PA. Management of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 2004; 12: 613–618. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Klepstad P, Fladvad T, Skorpen F et al. Influence from genetic variability on opioid use for cancer pain: a European genetic association study of 2294 cancer pain patients. Pain 2011; 152: 1139–1145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. WHOCancer Pain Relief and Palliative Care. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  47. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 365–376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Karnofsky D, Abelmann W, Craver L, Burchenal JH. The use of nitrogen mustard in the palliative treatment of cancer. Cancer 1948; 1: 634–656. [Google Scholar]
  49. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189–198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. SNPper. Available from http://snpper.chip.org/bio/snpper-enter.
  51. dbSNP. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP.
  52. Ensembl. Available from http://www.ensembl.org.
  53. HapMap Genome Browser. Available from http://www.hapmap.org.
  54. Teunissen SCCM, Wesker W, Kruitwagen C et al. Symptom prevalence in patients with incurable cancer: A systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manag 2007; 34: 94–104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Davis MP. Cancer constipation: are opioids really the culprit? Support Care Cancer 2008; 16: 427–429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Ramkumar D, Rao SS. Efficacy and safety of traditional medical therapies for chronic constipation: systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 936–971. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Sykes NP. A clinical comparison of laxative in a hospice. Palliat Med 1991; 5: 363. [Google Scholar]
  58. Gershon MD, Tack J. The serotonin signaling system: from basic understanding to drug development for functional GI disorders. Gastroenterology 2007; 132: 397–414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Grasberger H, Chang L, Shih W et al. Identification of a functional TPH1 polymorphism associated with irritable bowel syndrome bowel habit subtypes. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 1766–1774. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Jun S, Kohen R, Cain KC et al. Associations of tryptophan hydroxylase gene polymorphisms with irritable bowel syndrome. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2011; 23: 233–239 e116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Mura E, Govoni S, Racchi M et al. Consequences of the 118A>G polymorphism in the OPRM1 gene: translation from bench to bedside? J Pain Res 2013; 6: 331–353. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Ross JR, Riley J, Taegetmeyer AB et al. Genetic variation and response to morphine in cancer patients: catechol-O-methyltransferase and multidrug resistance-1 gene polymorphisms are associated with central side effects. Cancer 2008; 112: 1390–1403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Rhodin A, Gronbladh A, Ginya H et al. Combined analysis of circulating beta-endorphin with gene polymorphisms in OPRM1, CACNAD2 and ABCB1 reveals correlation with pain, opioid sensitivity and opioid-related side effects. Mol Brain 2013; 6: 8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Eglen RM, Hegde SS, Watson N. Muscarinic receptor subtypes and smooth muscle function. Pharmacol Rev 1996; 48: 531–565. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Thollander MSL,S, Chiba T, Sarr MG, Philips SF. Cholinergic control of colonic tone. Gastroenterology 1998; 114: A847. [Google Scholar]
  66. Onodera S, Chiba T, Sugai T et al. A genetic association between ss3-aderenoceptor and cholinergic receptor muscarinic 3 polymorphisms in irritable bowel syndrome. Hepatogastroenterology 2011; 58: 1474–1478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Laugsand EA, Fladvad T, Skorpen F et al. Clinical and genetic factors associated with nausea and vomiting in cancer patients receiving opioids. Eur J Cancer 2011; 47: 1682–1691. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Hatzimanolis A, Vitoratou S, Mandelli L et al. Potential role of membrane-bound COMT gene polymorphisms in female depression vulnerability. J Affect Disord 2013; 148: 316–322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Bortsov AV, Diatchenko L, McLean SA. Complex multilocus effects of catechol-O-methyltransferase haplotypes predict pain and pain interference 6 weeks after motor vehicle collision. Neuromolecular Med 2014; 16: 83–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Rakvag TT, Ross JR, Sato H et al. Genetic variation in the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene and morphine requirements in cancer patients with pain. Mol Pain 2008; 4: 64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Steiner H, Gerfen CR. Role of dynorphin and enkephalin in the regulation of striatal output pathways and behavior. Exp Brain Res 1998; 123: 60–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Chen JF, Aloyo VJ, Weiss B. Continuous treatment with the D2 dopamine receptor agonist quinpirole decreases D2 dopamine receptors, D2 dopamine receptor messenger RNA and proenkephalin messenger RNA, and increases mu opioid receptors in mouse striatum. Neuroscience 1993; 54: 669–680. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Gaertner J, Siemens W, Camilleri M et al. Definitions and outcome measures of clinical trials regarding opioid-induced constipation: a systematic review. J Clin Gastroenterol 2015; 49: 9–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Shi QL, Trask PC, Wang XS et al. Does recall period have an effect on cancer patients' ratings of the severity of multiple symptoms? J Pain Symptom Manag 2010; 40: 191–199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Table 1
Supplementary Table 2

Articles from Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology are provided here courtesy of American College of Gastroenterology

RESOURCES