Hale Martin E, Wild James E, Yamada Tadaaki, Yokota Takaaki, Tack Jan, Andresen Viola, Drewes Asbjørn Mohr
Gold Coast Research LLC, 499 NW 70th Ave Ste 200, Plantation, FL 33317, USA.
Upstate Clinical Research Associates, Williamsville, NY, USA.
Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2021 Jul 31;14:17562848211032320. doi: 10.1177/17562848211032320. eCollection 2021.
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 µ-opioid receptor antagonists in patients with adequate and inadequate responses to prior OIC therapy with laxatives. This 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).
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.
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%; < 0.0001) and non-PLR (54.3%; = 0.0009) subgroups 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.
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.[ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01965158 and NCT01993940].
两项研究证明了纳地美定对患有慢性非癌性疼痛和阿片类药物引起的便秘(OIC)的成年患者的有效性和安全性。然而,尚无研究比较外周作用的μ-阿片受体拮抗剂在对先前使用泻药治疗OIC反应充分和不充分的患者中的疗效。这项对两项先前研究的综合数据分析比较了纳地美定在使用泻药治疗失败的患者[泻药反应不佳者(PLR)]与在筛查前>30天未接受泻药治疗或仅在筛查时或筛查后接受急救泻药治疗的患者(非PLR)中的疗效。
将OIC患者随机分为每日一次接受0.2mg纳地美定或安慰剂治疗。主要疗效终点是有反应者的比例[每周至少3次自发性排便(SBM),在12周治疗期的至少9周和12周治疗期最后4周的至少3周内,SBM较基线每周增加至少1次]。其他终点包括SBM频率变化、无用力排便的SBM频率变化、完全SBM(CSBM)有反应者的比例、CSBM频率变化以及首次SBM的时间。评估治疗中出现的不良事件(TEAE)。
分析分别纳入了纳地美定组和安慰剂组的538例(317例PLR,221例非PLR)和537例(311例PLR,226例非PLR)患者。纳地美定PLR亚组(46.4%;<0.0001)和非PLR亚组(54.3%;=0.0009)的有反应者显著多于安慰剂组(分别为30.2%和38.9%)。在PLR和非PLR亚组中,纳地美定治疗在所有其他终点上均优于安慰剂。接受纳地美定或安慰剂治疗的PLR亚组中TEAE的总体发生率相似。
这项综合分析进一步支持了纳地美定治疗OIC的有效性和耐受性,并在PLR和非PLR亚组中均显示出一致的效果。[ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT01965158和NCT01993940]