Naldemedine
Regulatory sources consulted
Approved indications
- Opioid-induced constipation in adults previously treated with a laxative.
Contraindications
Absolute
- Hypersensitivity; known or suspected gastrointestinal obstruction or perforation, or high risk of recurrent obstruction.
Clinical warnings
- Major warning · It may cause gastrointestinal perforation or opioid-withdrawal symptoms. Severe, persistent, or worsening abdominal pain requires urgent assessment. — CIMA AEMPS / FDA label
Drug interactions
- HighStrong CYP3A inducers
Mechanism: They markedly reduce naldemedine exposure and may reduce efficacy.
Recommendation: Avoid concomitant use.
CIMA AEMPS / FDA label
- HighOther opioid antagonists
Mechanism: It may increase the risk of additive antagonist effects and opioid withdrawal.
Recommendation: Avoid concomitant use.
CIMA AEMPS / FDA label
- ModerateCYP3A and/or P-gp inhibitors
Mechanism: They may increase naldemedine exposure.
Recommendation: Monitor adverse reactions and reassess whether treatment remains appropriate.
CIMA AEMPS / FDA label
Adverse events
Common (≥1%)
Abdominal pain · Diarrhea
Rare but serious
Gastrointestinal perforation · Opioid withdrawal
Recent literature (PubMed)
Cancer-related pain often requires opioid treatment with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) as its most frequent gastrointestinal side-effect. Both for prevention and treatment of OIC osmotic (e.g. polyethylene glycol) and stimulant (e.g. bisacodyl) laxatives are widely used. Newer drugs such as the peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) and naloxone in a fixed combination with oxycodone have become available for the management of OIC. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to give an overview of the scientific evidence on pharmacological strategies for the prevention and treatment of OIC in cancer patients. A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library was completed from inception up to 22 October 2022. Randomized and non-randomized studies were systematically selected. Bowel function and adverse drug events were assessed. Twenty trials (prevention: five RCTs and three cohort studies; treatment: ten RCTs and two comparative cohort studies) were included in the review. Regarding the prevention of OIC, three RCTs compared laxatives with other laxatives, finding no clear differences in effectivity of the laxatives used. One cohort study showed a significant benefit of magnesium oxide compared with no laxative. One RCT found a significant benefit for the PAMORA naldemedine compared with magnesium oxide. Preventive use of oxycodone/naloxone did not show a significant difference in two out of three other studies compared to oxycodone or fentanyl. A meta-analysis was not possible. Regarding the treatment of OIC, two RCTs compared laxatives, of which one RCT found that polyethylene glycol was significantly more effective than sennosides. Seven studies compared an opioid antagonist (naloxone, methylnaltrexone or naldemedine) with placebo and three studies compared different dosages of opioid antagonists. These studies with opioid antagonists were used for the meta-analysis. Oxycodone/naloxone showed a significant i
Opioid-induced constipation is the most frequent and non-self-limiting adverse effect of opioid analgesia, reducing adherence and interfering with pain relief. This clinical trial aimed to clarify the preventive effect of naldemedine versus placebo for constipation in patients with cancer starting regularly dosed strong opioids therapy. This multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, confirmatory trial was conducted between July 2021 and May 2023 at four academic hospitals in Japan (Japan Registry of Clinical Trials identifier: jRCTs031200397). Patients with cancer starting a first-time regularly dosed strong opioid for cancer pain and age 20+ years were included. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to the naldemedine (Symproic 0.2 mg) or placebo group in a 1:1 ratio for 14 days with protocol treatment. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a Bowel Function Index (BFI) of <28.8 on day 14. The secondary end points included frequency of spontaneous bowel movements (SBM), quality of life (QOL), and frequency of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV). Of the 103 patients assessed for eligibility, 99 received either naldemedine (n = 49) or placebo (n = 50). A BFI of <28.8 on day 14 was significantly more likely to occur in the naldemedine group (64.6%; 95% CI, 51.1 to 78.1) versus placebo (17.0%; 95% CI, 6.3 to 27.8), and the difference between groups was 47.6% (95% CI, 30.3 to 64.8; P < .0001). The frequency of SBM, QOL, and the severity of OINV were nominally significant in the naldemedine group than in the control group. Naldemedine prevented constipation and improved constipation-related QOL, with possible preventive effect on OINV in patients with cancer starting regularly dosed opioids therapy.
Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a frequent adverse event among patients receiving chronic pain therapy that is requiring opioids. Naldemedine was approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat OIC and appears to be more efficient than any other peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonist. This meta-analysis aimed at assessing the available data on naldemedine in terms of efficacy. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed and ClinicalTrials on 24 May 2022 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing naldemedine to placebo among patients reporting OIC. Evaluation of 6 RCTs enrolling 2769 participants showed significantly greater respondence to treatment (OR=2.48; 95% CI: 2.02 to 3.06; p<0.00001), change in weekly spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) (mean difference=1.45; 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.76; p<0.00001), complete SBMs (mean difference=0.89; 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.17; p<0.00001) and SBMs without straining (mean difference=0.89; 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.17; p<0.00001) for patients treated with naldemedine. We found no difference in numeric pain rating scales after one (mean difference=0.05; 95% CI: -0.22 to 0.31; p=0.73) and two weeks of treatment (mean difference= -0.04; 95% CI: -0.31 to 0.22; p=0.75). Funding and clinical diversity were possible risks of bias. Naldemedine improves a variety of bowel function parameters while preserving analgesia, confirming its efficacy for patients with OIC. However, head-to-head trials are needed to establish naldemedine as treatment of first choice for laxative-refractory OIC. CRD42022281353.
The rise in opioid use for managing chronic and oncologic pain has led to a significant increase in opioid-induced constipation (OIC) that impacts patient quality of life and pain management. In this study, emerging therapies for OIC were criticized for refining advancements and novel treatment options. Key topics included the efficacy of peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) such as methylnaltrexone, naloxegol, and naldemedine, which specifically target opioid-induced gut dysfunction. Other treatment options, including intestinal secretagogues like lubiprostone and linaclotide, selective 5-HT receptor agonists such as prucalopride, and emerging adjunctive therapies like transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and electroacupuncture were mentioned. Current guidelines from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and the European consensus were criticized. Experts stress the importance of a stepwise approach to managing OIC, considering patient-specific factors and the efficacy of various treatments. While PAMORAs have demonstrated effectiveness in improving bowel function, their high cost and lack of extensive head-to-head comparisons with traditional laxatives are significant concerns. Emerging therapies and adjunctive treatments offer promising results but require further validation through rigorous studies. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness to better address the complex needs of patients with OIC and refine treatment protocols.