search
Back to results

Long Term Safety of Naldemedine

Primary Purpose

Opioid-induced Constipation

Status
Completed
Phase
Phase 3
Locations
International
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Naldemedine
Placebo
Sponsored by
Shionogi
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Opioid-induced Constipation focused on measuring Opioid Induced Constipation

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - 80 Years (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria

  1. Subjects aged 18 to 80 years inclusive at the time of informed consent
  2. Subjects must have non-malignant chronic pain treated and must have opioid induced constipation (OIC)
  3. Subjects must be treated with a stable opioid regimen at a total daily dose on average of ≥ 30 mg equivalents of oral morphine sulfate
  4. Subjects may or may not be on a routine laxative regimen at the time of Screening

Exclusion Criteria

  1. Evidence of significant structural abnormalities of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract
  2. Evidence of active medical diseases affecting bowel transit
  3. History of pelvic disorders that may be a cause of constipation
  4. Surgery (except for minor procedures) within 60 days of Screening
  5. History of chronic constipation prior to starting analgesic medication or any potential non-opioid cause of bowel dysfunction that may be a major contributor to the constipation (e.g. mechanical GI obstruction)
  6. Subjects who have never taken laxatives for the treatment of OIC
  7. Current use of any prohibited medication including opioid antagonists, partial or mixed agonists/antagonists

Sites / Locations

  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site
  • Shionogi Research Site

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Experimental

Placebo Comparator

Arm Label

Naldemedine

Placebo

Arm Description

Participants received 0.2 mg naldemedine tablets orally once daily for 52 weeks.

Participants received matching placebo tablets orally once daily for 52 weeks.

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Number of Participants With Adverse Events
A serious adverse event was defined as any adverse event (AE) that resulted in any of the following outcomes: death, life-threatening AE, hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, a persistent or significant disability/incapacity, or a congenital anomaly/birth defect. Important medical events that may not result in death, be life threatening, or require hospitalization were considered an SAE when, based upon appropriate medical judgment, they jeopardized the patient or required medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed above. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were defined as adverse events that were considered by the investigator to be definitely, probably, or possibly related to study drug. Serious ADRs were defined as serious AEs considered by the investigator to be definitely, probably, or possibly related to study drug.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Change From Baseline in the Number of Bowel Movements Per Week
Participants monitored their bowel movements and completed a daily bowel habits diary the week prior to study visits (i.e. during Weeks 11, 23, 35, and 51).
Percentage of Participants Meeting Each Criterion of Laxative Use
Participants who were taking stable routine/regular laxatives at Screening were to continue taking the same regimen throughout the study. The percentage of participants meeting each of the criteria below are reported: 1. Participants not on stable laxatives, defined as participants who did not use laxatives from 28 days prior to the Screening Period to the final dose of study drug or who received only rescue laxative. Rescue is defined as any laxative taken for the first time during the Treatment Period. 1a. Out of participants who were not on stable laxatives, participants who received rescue laxatives. 2. Participants on stable laxatives, defined as participants who may have had at least one/any stable laxative use reported from 28 days prior to Screening Period to the final dose of study drug. 2a. Out of participants who were on stable laxatives, participants who received rescue laxatives. 3. Participants who did not meet criteria 1 or 2.
Change From Baseline in the Overall Score for Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms
The Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptom Questionnaire (PAC-SYM) asked participants to rate the severity of 12 constipation symptoms in the last 2 weeks on a scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe). The overall score was calculated as the mean of all 12 items and ranges from 0 (best) to 4 (worst). A negative change from baseline value indicates improvement.
Change From Baseline in the PAC-SYM Abdominal-symptoms Domain Score
The Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptom Questionnaire (PAC-SYM) asked participants to rate the severity of 12 constipation symptoms in the last 2 weeks on a scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe). The abdominal-symptom domain score was calculated as the mean of the following 4 items: abdominal discomfort, abdominal pain, abdominal bloating and stomach cramps. A negative change from baseline value indicates improvement in symptoms.
Change From Baseline in the PAC-SYM Rectal-symptoms Domain Score
The Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptom Questionnaire (PAC-SYM) asked participants to rate the severity of 12 constipation symptoms in the last 2 weeks on a scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe). The abdominal-symptom domain score was calculated as the mean of the following 3 items: painful bowel movements, rectal burning during or after a bowel movement, and rectal bleeding or tearing during or after a bowel movement. A negative change from baseline value indicates improvement in symptoms.
Change From Baseline in the PAC-SYM Stool-symptoms Domain Score
The Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptom Questionnaire (PAC-SYM) asked participants to rate the severity of 12 constipation symptoms in the last 2 weeks on a scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe). The stool-symptom domain score was calculated as the mean of the following 5 items: incomplete bowel movements, bowel movements that were too hard, bowel movements that were too small, straining or squeezing to try to pass bowel movements, and false-alarm bowel movements. A negative change from baseline value indicates improvement in symptoms.
Change From Baseline in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life Overall Score
The Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life Questionnaire (PAC-QOL) consists of 28 questions designed to measure the impact constipation has had on participants' daily life during the past 2 weeks. Each question was evaluated by the participant on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all or none of the time) to 4 (extremely or all of the time), where higher scores represent poorer quality of life. The overall score was calculated as the mean of all 28 item scores. A negative change from baseline value indicates improvement.
Change From Baseline in the Physical Discomfort Domain of PAC-QOL
The Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life Questionnaire (PAC-QOL) consists of 28 questions designed to measure the impact constipation has had on participants' daily life during the past 2 weeks. Each question was evaluated by the participant on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all or none of the time) to 4 (extremely or all of the time), where higher scores represent poorer quality of life. The physical discomfort domain consists of 4 questions related to bloating, feeling heavy, how much of the time participants felt any physical discomfort and how much time they felt the need to open their bowel but were not able to. The physical discomfort score was calculated as the mean of the 4 individual scores. A negative change from baseline value indicates improvement.
Change From Baseline in the Psychosocial Discomfort Domain of PAC-QOL
The Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life Questionnaire (PAC-QOL) consists of 28 questions designed to measure the impact constipation has had on participants' daily life during the past 2 weeks. Each question was evaluated by the participant on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all or none of the time) to 4 (extremely or all of the time), where higher scores represent poorer quality of life. The psychosocial discomfort domain consists of 8 questions related to participants' embarrassment regarding their constipation and effects of constipation on eating habits and appetite. The psychosocial discomfort score was calculated as the mean of the 8 individual scores. A negative change from baseline value indicates improvement.
Change From Baseline in the Worries and Concerns Domain of PAC-QOL
The Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life Questionnaire (PAC-QOL) consists of 28 questions designed to measure the impact constipation has had on participants' daily life during the past 2 weeks. Each question was evaluated by the participant on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all or none of the time) to 4 (extremely or all of the time), where higher scores represent poorer quality of life. The worries and concerns domain consists of 11 questions related to participants' feelings and concerns about their constipation. The worries and concerns domain score was calculated as the mean of the 11 individual scores. A negative change from baseline value indicates improvement.
Change From Baseline in the Satisfaction Domain of PAC-QOL
The Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life Questionnaire (PAC-QOL) consists of 28 questions designed to measure the impact constipation has had on participants' daily life during the past 2 weeks. Each question was evaluated by the participant on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all or none of the time) to 4 (extremely or all of the time), where higher scores represent poorer quality of life. The satisfaction domain consists of 5 questions related to participants' feelings of satisfaction with their bowel function. The satisfaction domain score was calculated as the mean of the 5 individual scores. A negative change from baseline value indicates improvement.
Participant Global Satisfaction
Participants were asked to rate their degree of satisfaction of constipation and abdominal symptoms from the start of study drug dosing to Week 52 (or early termination). Satisfaction was rated based on the following seven grades: Grade 1 = markedly worsened Grade 2 = moderately worsened Grade 3 = slightly worsened Grade 4 = unchanged Grade 5 = slightly improved Grade 6 = moderately improved Grade 7 = markedly improved

Full Information

First Posted
October 15, 2013
Last Updated
April 16, 2018
Sponsor
Shionogi
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT01965652
Brief Title
Long Term Safety of Naldemedine
Official Title
A Randomized Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, Multicenter, Phase 3 Study to Evaluate the Long-term Safety of Naldemedine for the Treatment of Opioid-induced Constipation in Subjects With Non-malignant Chronic Pain Receiving Opioid Therapy
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
April 2018
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
September 24, 2013 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
January 12, 2016 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
January 12, 2016 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
Shionogi

4. Oversight

Data Monitoring Committee
Yes

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the long-term safety of naldemedine for the treatment of constipation due to opioid therapy.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Opioid-induced Constipation
Keywords
Opioid Induced Constipation

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Phase 3
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
ParticipantCare ProviderInvestigatorOutcomes Assessor
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
1246 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Naldemedine
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Participants received 0.2 mg naldemedine tablets orally once daily for 52 weeks.
Arm Title
Placebo
Arm Type
Placebo Comparator
Arm Description
Participants received matching placebo tablets orally once daily for 52 weeks.
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Naldemedine
Other Intervention Name(s)
S-297995, Symproic®
Intervention Description
Naldemedine 0.2 mg tablet taken orally once a day
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Placebo
Intervention Description
Placebo tablet taken orally once a day
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Number of Participants With Adverse Events
Description
A serious adverse event was defined as any adverse event (AE) that resulted in any of the following outcomes: death, life-threatening AE, hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, a persistent or significant disability/incapacity, or a congenital anomaly/birth defect. Important medical events that may not result in death, be life threatening, or require hospitalization were considered an SAE when, based upon appropriate medical judgment, they jeopardized the patient or required medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed above. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were defined as adverse events that were considered by the investigator to be definitely, probably, or possibly related to study drug. Serious ADRs were defined as serious AEs considered by the investigator to be definitely, probably, or possibly related to study drug.
Time Frame
From the first dose of study drug up to 14 days after the last dose of study drug (54 weeks).
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Change From Baseline in the Number of Bowel Movements Per Week
Description
Participants monitored their bowel movements and completed a daily bowel habits diary the week prior to study visits (i.e. during Weeks 11, 23, 35, and 51).
Time Frame
Baseline and Weeks 12, 24, 36, and 52
Title
Percentage of Participants Meeting Each Criterion of Laxative Use
Description
Participants who were taking stable routine/regular laxatives at Screening were to continue taking the same regimen throughout the study. The percentage of participants meeting each of the criteria below are reported: 1. Participants not on stable laxatives, defined as participants who did not use laxatives from 28 days prior to the Screening Period to the final dose of study drug or who received only rescue laxative. Rescue is defined as any laxative taken for the first time during the Treatment Period. 1a. Out of participants who were not on stable laxatives, participants who received rescue laxatives. 2. Participants on stable laxatives, defined as participants who may have had at least one/any stable laxative use reported from 28 days prior to Screening Period to the final dose of study drug. 2a. Out of participants who were on stable laxatives, participants who received rescue laxatives. 3. Participants who did not meet criteria 1 or 2.
Time Frame
From 28 days prior to screening until the end of the treatment period (total of 56 weeks)
Title
Change From Baseline in the Overall Score for Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms
Description
The Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptom Questionnaire (PAC-SYM) asked participants to rate the severity of 12 constipation symptoms in the last 2 weeks on a scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe). The overall score was calculated as the mean of all 12 items and ranges from 0 (best) to 4 (worst). A negative change from baseline value indicates improvement.
Time Frame
Baseline and Weeks 2, 12, 24, 36, and 52
Title
Change From Baseline in the PAC-SYM Abdominal-symptoms Domain Score
Description
The Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptom Questionnaire (PAC-SYM) asked participants to rate the severity of 12 constipation symptoms in the last 2 weeks on a scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe). The abdominal-symptom domain score was calculated as the mean of the following 4 items: abdominal discomfort, abdominal pain, abdominal bloating and stomach cramps. A negative change from baseline value indicates improvement in symptoms.
Time Frame
Baseline and Weeks 2, 12, 24, 36, and 52
Title
Change From Baseline in the PAC-SYM Rectal-symptoms Domain Score
Description
The Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptom Questionnaire (PAC-SYM) asked participants to rate the severity of 12 constipation symptoms in the last 2 weeks on a scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe). The abdominal-symptom domain score was calculated as the mean of the following 3 items: painful bowel movements, rectal burning during or after a bowel movement, and rectal bleeding or tearing during or after a bowel movement. A negative change from baseline value indicates improvement in symptoms.
Time Frame
Baseline and Weeks 2, 12, 24, 36, and 52
Title
Change From Baseline in the PAC-SYM Stool-symptoms Domain Score
Description
The Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptom Questionnaire (PAC-SYM) asked participants to rate the severity of 12 constipation symptoms in the last 2 weeks on a scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe). The stool-symptom domain score was calculated as the mean of the following 5 items: incomplete bowel movements, bowel movements that were too hard, bowel movements that were too small, straining or squeezing to try to pass bowel movements, and false-alarm bowel movements. A negative change from baseline value indicates improvement in symptoms.
Time Frame
Baseline and Weeks 2, 12, 24, 36, and 52
Title
Change From Baseline in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life Overall Score
Description
The Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life Questionnaire (PAC-QOL) consists of 28 questions designed to measure the impact constipation has had on participants' daily life during the past 2 weeks. Each question was evaluated by the participant on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all or none of the time) to 4 (extremely or all of the time), where higher scores represent poorer quality of life. The overall score was calculated as the mean of all 28 item scores. A negative change from baseline value indicates improvement.
Time Frame
Baseline and Weeks 2, 12, 24, 36, and 52
Title
Change From Baseline in the Physical Discomfort Domain of PAC-QOL
Description
The Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life Questionnaire (PAC-QOL) consists of 28 questions designed to measure the impact constipation has had on participants' daily life during the past 2 weeks. Each question was evaluated by the participant on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all or none of the time) to 4 (extremely or all of the time), where higher scores represent poorer quality of life. The physical discomfort domain consists of 4 questions related to bloating, feeling heavy, how much of the time participants felt any physical discomfort and how much time they felt the need to open their bowel but were not able to. The physical discomfort score was calculated as the mean of the 4 individual scores. A negative change from baseline value indicates improvement.
Time Frame
Baseline and Weeks 2, 12, 24, 36, and 52
Title
Change From Baseline in the Psychosocial Discomfort Domain of PAC-QOL
Description
The Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life Questionnaire (PAC-QOL) consists of 28 questions designed to measure the impact constipation has had on participants' daily life during the past 2 weeks. Each question was evaluated by the participant on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all or none of the time) to 4 (extremely or all of the time), where higher scores represent poorer quality of life. The psychosocial discomfort domain consists of 8 questions related to participants' embarrassment regarding their constipation and effects of constipation on eating habits and appetite. The psychosocial discomfort score was calculated as the mean of the 8 individual scores. A negative change from baseline value indicates improvement.
Time Frame
Baseline and Weeks 2, 12, 24, 36, and 52
Title
Change From Baseline in the Worries and Concerns Domain of PAC-QOL
Description
The Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life Questionnaire (PAC-QOL) consists of 28 questions designed to measure the impact constipation has had on participants' daily life during the past 2 weeks. Each question was evaluated by the participant on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all or none of the time) to 4 (extremely or all of the time), where higher scores represent poorer quality of life. The worries and concerns domain consists of 11 questions related to participants' feelings and concerns about their constipation. The worries and concerns domain score was calculated as the mean of the 11 individual scores. A negative change from baseline value indicates improvement.
Time Frame
Baseline and Weeks 2, 12, 24, 36, and 52
Title
Change From Baseline in the Satisfaction Domain of PAC-QOL
Description
The Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life Questionnaire (PAC-QOL) consists of 28 questions designed to measure the impact constipation has had on participants' daily life during the past 2 weeks. Each question was evaluated by the participant on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all or none of the time) to 4 (extremely or all of the time), where higher scores represent poorer quality of life. The satisfaction domain consists of 5 questions related to participants' feelings of satisfaction with their bowel function. The satisfaction domain score was calculated as the mean of the 5 individual scores. A negative change from baseline value indicates improvement.
Time Frame
Baseline and Weeks 2, 12, 24, 36, and 52
Title
Participant Global Satisfaction
Description
Participants were asked to rate their degree of satisfaction of constipation and abdominal symptoms from the start of study drug dosing to Week 52 (or early termination). Satisfaction was rated based on the following seven grades: Grade 1 = markedly worsened Grade 2 = moderately worsened Grade 3 = slightly worsened Grade 4 = unchanged Grade 5 = slightly improved Grade 6 = moderately improved Grade 7 = markedly improved
Time Frame
Week 52 or early termination visit

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
80 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria Subjects aged 18 to 80 years inclusive at the time of informed consent Subjects must have non-malignant chronic pain treated and must have opioid induced constipation (OIC) Subjects must be treated with a stable opioid regimen at a total daily dose on average of ≥ 30 mg equivalents of oral morphine sulfate Subjects may or may not be on a routine laxative regimen at the time of Screening Exclusion Criteria Evidence of significant structural abnormalities of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract Evidence of active medical diseases affecting bowel transit History of pelvic disorders that may be a cause of constipation Surgery (except for minor procedures) within 60 days of Screening History of chronic constipation prior to starting analgesic medication or any potential non-opioid cause of bowel dysfunction that may be a major contributor to the constipation (e.g. mechanical GI obstruction) Subjects who have never taken laxatives for the treatment of OIC Current use of any prohibited medication including opioid antagonists, partial or mixed agonists/antagonists
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Shionogi Clinical Trials Administrator Clinical Support Help Line
Organizational Affiliation
Shionogi
Official's Role
Study Director
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Birmingham
State/Province
Alabama
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Mobile
State/Province
Alabama
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Chandler
State/Province
Arizona
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Glendale
State/Province
Arizona
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Goodyear
State/Province
Arizona
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Mesa
State/Province
Arizona
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Phoenix
State/Province
Arizona
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Tucson
State/Province
Arizona
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Fountain Valley
State/Province
California
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Garden Grove
State/Province
California
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Glendale
State/Province
California
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Long Beach
State/Province
California
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Los Angeles
State/Province
California
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Oceanside
State/Province
California
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Sacramento
State/Province
California
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Santa Ana
State/Province
California
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Upland
State/Province
California
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Colorado Springs
State/Province
Colorado
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Boynton Beach
State/Province
Florida
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Brandon
State/Province
Florida
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Brooksville
State/Province
Florida
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Clearwater
State/Province
Florida
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Fort Myers
State/Province
Florida
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Jacksonville
State/Province
Florida
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Lake City
State/Province
Florida
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Lakeland
State/Province
Florida
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Orlando
State/Province
Florida
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Saint Petersburg
State/Province
Florida
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
South Miami
State/Province
Florida
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Tampa
State/Province
Florida
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Atlanta
State/Province
Georgia
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Blue Ridge
State/Province
Georgia
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Decatur
State/Province
Georgia
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Savannah
State/Province
Georgia
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Boise
State/Province
Idaho
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Aurora
State/Province
Illinois
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Bloomington
State/Province
Illinois
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Decatur
State/Province
Illinois
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Rockford
State/Province
Illinois
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Schaumburg
State/Province
Illinois
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Evansville
State/Province
Indiana
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Lafayette
State/Province
Indiana
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Valparaiso
State/Province
Indiana
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Augusta
State/Province
Kansas
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Newton
State/Province
Kansas
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Wichita
State/Province
Kansas
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Hartford
State/Province
Kentucky
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Eunice
State/Province
Louisiana
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Lake Charles
State/Province
Louisiana
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Mandeville
State/Province
Louisiana
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Brockton
State/Province
Massachusetts
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Fall River
State/Province
Massachusetts
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
New Bedford
State/Province
Massachusetts
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Rochester
State/Province
Michigan
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Saginaw
State/Province
Michigan
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Traverse City
State/Province
Michigan
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Biloxi
State/Province
Mississippi
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Fremont
State/Province
Nebraska
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Omaha
State/Province
Nebraska
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Henderson
State/Province
Nevada
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Las Vegas
State/Province
Nevada
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Trenton
State/Province
New Jersey
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Albuquerque
State/Province
New Mexico
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
New York
State/Province
New York
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Greensboro
State/Province
North Carolina
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Wilmington
State/Province
North Carolina
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Winston-Salem
State/Province
North Carolina
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Akron
State/Province
Ohio
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Canton
State/Province
Ohio
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Columbus
State/Province
Ohio
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Groveport
State/Province
Ohio
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Kettering
State/Province
Ohio
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Lebanon
State/Province
Ohio
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Marion
State/Province
Ohio
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Munroe Falls
State/Province
Ohio
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Oklahoma City
State/Province
Oklahoma
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Tulsa
State/Province
Oklahoma
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Portland
State/Province
Oregon
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Huntingdon Valley
State/Province
Pennsylvania
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Jenkintown
State/Province
Pennsylvania
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Lansdale
State/Province
Pennsylvania
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Charleston
State/Province
South Carolina
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Greer
State/Province
South Carolina
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Myrtle Beach
State/Province
South Carolina
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Summerville
State/Province
South Carolina
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Bristol
State/Province
Tennessee
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Milan
State/Province
Tennessee
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Nashville
State/Province
Tennessee
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Austin
State/Province
Texas
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Dallas
State/Province
Texas
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Houston
State/Province
Texas
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Hurst
State/Province
Texas
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Sugar Land
State/Province
Texas
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Bountiful
State/Province
Utah
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Salt Lake City
State/Province
Utah
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
South Ogden
State/Province
Utah
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Richmond
State/Province
Virginia
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Bellevue
State/Province
Washington
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Edmonds
State/Province
Washington
Country
United States
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Adelaide
Country
Australia
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Bedford Park
Country
Australia
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Camperdown
Country
Australia
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Carina Heights
Country
Australia
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Caulfield South
Country
Australia
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Malvern East
Country
Australia
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Nambour
Country
Australia
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Sherwood
Country
Australia
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
St Leonards
Country
Australia
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Linz
Country
Austria
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Vienna
Country
Austria
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Zams
Country
Austria
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
London
Country
Canada
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Mirabel
Country
Canada
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Sarnia
Country
Canada
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Sherbrooke
Country
Canada
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Toronto
Country
Canada
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Vancouver
Country
Canada
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Benesov
Country
Czechia
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Olomouc
Country
Czechia
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Ostrava
Country
Czechia
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Pardubice
Country
Czechia
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Pribram V- Zdabor
Country
Czechia
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Glostrup
Country
Denmark
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Hellerup
Country
Denmark
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Odense
Country
Denmark
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Soulaine Sur Aubance
Country
France
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Berlin
Country
Germany
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Dresden
Country
Germany
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Halle
Country
Germany
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Hamburg
Country
Germany
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Hannover
Country
Germany
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Kassel
Country
Germany
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Leipzig
Country
Germany
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Luenen
Country
Germany
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Mainz
Country
Germany
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Muenster
Country
Germany
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Stadtroda
Country
Germany
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Balatonfuered
Country
Hungary
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Budapest
Country
Hungary
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Debrecen
Country
Hungary
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Hatvan
Country
Hungary
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Szikszo
Country
Hungary
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Beer Sheva
Country
Israel
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Haifa
Country
Israel
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Tel Aviv
Country
Israel
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Tel Hashomer
Country
Israel
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Asti
Country
Italy
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Catania
Country
Italy
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Chieti
Country
Italy
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Firenze
Country
Italy
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Napoli
Country
Italy
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Rionero in Vulture
Country
Italy
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Roma
Country
Italy
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Rome
Country
Italy
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Chorzów
Country
Poland
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Gdańsk
Country
Poland
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Katowice
Country
Poland
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Lublin
Country
Poland
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Alberton
Country
South Africa
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Lyttelton Centurion
Country
South Africa
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Muckleneuk Pretoria
Country
South Africa
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Pretoria West Pretoria
Country
South Africa
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Worcester
Country
South Africa
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Barcelona
Country
Spain
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Girona
Country
Spain
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Sevilla
Country
Spain
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Skene
Country
Sweden
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Stockholm
Country
Sweden
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Bath
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Belfast
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Bexhill On Sea East Sussex
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Chesterfield
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Chestfield Kent
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Daventry Northants
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Devon
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Epworth Doncaster
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Harrogate
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Hinckley
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Liverpool
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Norwich
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Oldham
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Peterborough
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Randalstown, County Antrim
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Spiro Close, Pulborough West Sussex
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
Wellingborough Northamptonshire
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
Shionogi Research Site
City
York
Country
United Kingdom

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Citations:
PubMed Identifier
34295186
Citation
Camilleri M, Hale M, Morlion B, Tack J, Webster L, Wild J. Naldemedine Improves Patient-Reported Outcomes of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients with Chronic Non-Cancer Pain in the COMPOSE Phase 3 Studies. J Pain Res. 2021 Jul 16;14:2179-2189. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S282738. eCollection 2021.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
32280263
Citation
Webster LR, Hale ME, Yamada T, Wild JE. A Renal Impairment Subgroup Analysis of the Safety and Efficacy of Naldemedine for the Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients with Chronic Non-Cancer Pain Receiving Opioid Therapy. J Pain Res. 2020 Mar 24;13:605-612. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S237833. eCollection 2020.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
32086791
Citation
Wild J, Webster L, Yamada T, Hale M. Safety and Efficacy of Naldemedine for the Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients with Chronic Non-Cancer Pain Receiving Opioid Therapy: A Subgroup Analysis of Patients >/= 65 Years of Age. Drugs Aging. 2020 Apr;37(4):271-279. doi: 10.1007/s40266-020-00753-2.
Results Reference
derived

Learn more about this trial

Long Term Safety of Naldemedine

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs