You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 68, Issue 8
  • Assessing the efficacy of peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) in the treatment of opioid-induced constipation: authors reply

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Assessing the efficacy of peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) in the treatment of opioid-induced constipation: authors reply
  1. Nicholas E Burr1,
  2. Alexander C Ford2
  1. 1 Leeds Gastroenterology Institute, St. James’s University Hospital, Leeds, UK
  2. 2 Leeds Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Alexander C Ford, Leeds Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK; alexf12399{at}yahoo.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2018-316977

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We thank Chedid and Camilleri for their carefully composed letter,1 and are delighted to have provoked further debate about the relative efficacy of drugs acting on µ-opioid receptors in the treatment of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) with our network meta-analysis.2 In fact, we had also written to another journal concerning a recent network meta-analysis examining this issue,3 which had reported erroneously that subcutaneous methylnaltrexone appeared to perform better than other medications for OIC.4 The authors confirmed in their reply to our letter that they had mistakenly included redundant data from duplicate publications of the same two randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) of methylnaltrexone in this meta-analysis,5 likely accounting for their findings.4 …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors ACF and NEB drafted the letter and approved the final draft of the manuscript.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles