4.4 Article

Naldemedine is effective in the treatment of opioid-induced constipation in patients with chronic non-cancer pain who had a poor response to laxatives

Journal

THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 14, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/17562848211032320

Keywords

antagonists; chronic pain; drug therapy; constipation; laxatives; opioid

Funding

  1. Shionogi Inc., Florham Park, NJ

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Naldemedine demonstrated significant efficacy in treating OIC patients, both in poor laxative responders and non-responders to laxatives. The drug was superior to placebo in increasing frequency of spontaneous bowel movements and complete spontaneous bowel movements, with a similar incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events in both groups.
Background: Two studies demonstrated the efficacy and safety of naldemedine in adult patients with chronic non-cancer pain and opioid-induced constipation (OIC). However, no studies have compared the efficacy of peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists in patients with adequate and inadequate responses to prior OIC therapy with laxatives. This post hoc analysis of integrated data from the two previous studies compared the efficacy of naldemedine in patients who were unsuccessfully treated with laxatives [poor laxative responders (PLRs)] with those who either did not receive laxatives >30 days prior to screening or those who only received rescue laxative at or after screening (non-PLRs). Methods: Patients with OIC were randomized to once-daily treatment with naldemedine 0.2 mg or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of responders [> 3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs)/week and an increase from baseline of > 1 SBM/week for > 9 weeks of the 12-week treatment period and > 3 weeks of the final 4 weeks of the 12-week treatment period]. Additional endpoints included change in SBM frequency, change in frequency of SBMs without straining, proportion of complete SBM (CSBM) responders, change in CSBM frequency, and time to first SBM. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed. Results: The analysis included 538 (317 PLRs, 221 non-PLRs) and 537 (311 PLRs, 226 non-PLRs) patients in the naldemedine and placebo arms, respectively. There were significantly more responders in the naldemedine PLR (46.4%; p < 0.0001) and non-PLR (54.3%; p = 0.0009) subgroups versus the placebo groups (30.2% and 38.9%, respectively). In both the PLR and non-PLR subgroups, naldemedine treatment was superior to placebo on all additional endpoints. Overall incidence of TEAEs in the PLR subgroups treated with naldemedine or placebo was similar. Conclusion: This integrated analysis further supports the efficacy and tolerability of naldemedine in the treatment of OIC and demonstrates a consistent effect in both PLR and non-PLR subgroups.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available