Kyoko Obayashi

The prevalence of chronic pain in patients with cancer ranges from 23% to 36%. Opioids are effective in relieving severe pain; however, they also cause side effects, such as physical dependence, tolerance, sedation, and hyperalgesia. The prevalence of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) increases with a rise in the duration of opioid analgesic use. When OIC develops, opioid treatment satisfaction decreases, and many patients tend to discontinue treatment. Naldemedine is an opioid receptor antagonist that improves OIC in patients with cancer by acting on the gastrointestinal tract. It does not inhibit opioid analgesia or cause withdrawal symptoms. Therefore, this review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of OIC management in patients with cancer pain, with a focus on naldemedine. This narrative review also reports recent findings on the efficacy and safety of naldemedine and provides comparisons based on cancer type. A comprehensive search was conducted to identify primary articles on the clinical effectiveness and adverse effects of naldemedine in patients with cancer with OIC. Naldemedine is a well-tolerated and effective drug for treatment of OIC in patients with cancer, and its use is expected to increase.

Objectives Lenalidomide, a hazardous drug, has strict distribution controls. However, the risk of contamination with lenalidomide when patients take the drug has not been studied and the risk of drug exposure to people in the patient’s living environment is unknown. Thus, we investigated the amount of lenalidomide that could be dispersed during the period between removal of the capsule and returning the used blister packages, and we considered the conditions under which lenalidomide could be dispersed and countermeasures. Methods The amount of lenalidomide contamination was measured on the outside of the unused blister packages returned by the patients, on the surface of the capsule, and on the inside of the package immediately after removal of the capsule. In addition, the amount of contamination was measured on the blister packages used by the patients and on the gloves worn by the pharmacists on receipt of the packages. Lenalidomide was analysed by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. Results Lenalidomide amounts on the outside of the unused blister packages returned by the three patients were Conclusions The amount of lenalidomide contamination per package was found to be at least 100 ng less after collection by the pharmacist than immediately after removal of the capsules. Therefore, it is recommended to clean the surrounding area and wash one’s hands after taking the capsules.

Background and Objectives: Opioid analgesics, which are used for cancer-related pain management, cause opioid-induced constipation (OIC). Naldemedine, a peripheral opioid receptor antagonist, is an OIC-modifying agent, but no focused efficacy and safety analysis has been conducted for its use in hepatobiliary pancreatic cancers. We performed a multi-institutional study on the efficacy and safety of naldemedine in patients with hepatobiliary pancreatic cancer using opioids in clinical practice. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients with hepatobiliary pancreatic cancer (including liver, biliary tract, and pancreatic cancers) treated with opioids and naldemedine during hospitalization at ten institutions in Japan from June 2017 to August 2019. We assessed the frequency of bowel movements before and after the initiation of naldemedine therapy. Responders were defined as patients who defecated ≥3 times/week, with an increase from a baseline of ≥1 defecations/week over seven days after the initiation of naldemedine administration. Results: Thirty-four patients were observed for one week before and one week after starting naldemedine. The frequency of bowel movements increased by one over the baseline frequency or to at least thrice per week in 21 patients. The response rate was 61.7% (95% confidence interval: 45.4–78.0%). The median number of weekly bowel movements before and after naldemedine treatment was 2 (range: 0–9) and 6 (range: 1–17), respectively, in the overall population (n = 34); the increase in the number of bowel movements following naldemedine administration was statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p < 0.0001). Diarrhea was the predominant gastrointestinal symptom, and 10 (29.4%) patients experienced grade 1, grade 2, or grade 3 adverse events. The only other adverse event included fatigue in one patient; grade 2–4 adverse events were absent. Conclusions: Naldemedine is effective, and its use may be safe in clinical practice for patients with hepatobiliary pancreatic cancer receiving opioid analgesics.

The efficacy and safety of naldemedine for opioid-induced constipation in patients with cancer has not been investigated in clinical practice. We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study to assess the effects of naldemedine among 10 Japanese institutions between June 2017 and August 2019. We evaluated the number of defecations 7 days before and after naldemedine administration. A total of 149 patients (89 male) with a median age of 72 years (range, 38–96) were included. The performance status was 0–1, 2, and ≥3 in 40, 38, and 71 patients, respectively. The median opioid dose in oral morphine equivalents was 30 mg/day (range: 7.5–800 mg). We observed 98 responders and 51 non-responders. The median number of defecations increased significantly in the 7 days following naldemedine administration from three to six (p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that an opioid dose p = 0.042] was significantly correlated with the effect of naldemedine. Diarrhea was the most common adverse event (38.2%) among all grades. The efficacy and safety of naldemedine in clinical practice are comparable to those of prospective studies, suggesting that it is effective in most patients.

A triple antiemetic therapy combining aprepitant (APR) with conventional double antiemetic therapy, including 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3-RA) and dexamethasone (DEX), is recommended for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting induced by a carboplatin (CBDCA) regimen. However, consensus on the additive effects of APR for gynecological patients on a combined regimen of paclitaxel and CBDCA (TC regimen) has yet to be reached. This retrospective study investigated the antiemetic effects of palonosetron and DEX (PD therapy) and granisetron and DEX with APR (GDA therapy) in patients with gynecologic cancer and who underwent their first TC regimen cycle between April 2017 and March 2020 at the Gunma University Hospital Outpatient Chemotherapy Center. The results showed that the complete response rate of the 92 patients who underwent PD therapy (PD group) and the 46 patients who underwent GDA therapy (GDA group) were both 80.4% (p = 1.000), and the complete control rates of the PD and GDA groups were 78.3% and 80.4%, respectively (p = 0.828), resulting in no significant difference. Furthermore, we observed no significant difference between the PD and GDA groups in the incidence of grade ≥2 nausea, vomiting, and anorexia (nausea: 7.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.095; vomiting: 4.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.301; and anorexia: 9.8% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.164). Concerning adverse events, compared to the PD group, the GDA group showed significantly higher incidence of grade ≥2 malaise (7.6% vs. 19.6%, p = 0.039). Given the lack of difference in the antiemetic effects of PD and GDA therapies, antiemetic therapy should be selected carefully for individual patients by accounting for the incidence of adverse reactions and interactions with APR.

A triple antiemetic therapy combining aprepitant (APR) with conventional double antiemetic therapy, including 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT 3-RA) and dexamethasone (DEX), is recommended for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting induced by a carboplatin (CBDCA) regimen. However, consensus on the additive effects of APR for gynecological patients on a combined regimen of paclitaxel and CBDCA (TC regimen) has yet to be reached. This retrospective study investigated the antiemetic effects of palonosetron and DEX (PD therapy) and granisetron and DEX with APR (GDA therapy) in patients with gynecologic cancer and who underwent their first TC regimen cycle between April 2017 and March 2020 at the Gunma University Hospital Outpatient Chemotherapy Center. The results showed that the complete response rate of the 92 patients who underwent PD therapy (PD group) and the 46 patients who underwent GDA therapy (GDA group) were both 80.4% (p = 1.000), and the complete control rates of the PD and GDA groups were 78.3% and 80.4%, respectively (p = 0.828), resulting in no significant difference. Furthermore, we observed no significant difference between the PD and GDA groups in the incidence of grade >= 2 nausea, vomiting, and anorexia (nausea: 7.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.095; vomiting: 4.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.301; and anorexia: 9.8% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.164). Concerning adverse events, compared to the PD group, the GDA group showed significantly higher incidence of grade >= 2 malaise (7.6% vs. 19.6%, p = 0.039). Given the lack of difference in the antiemetic effects of PD and GDA therapies, antiemetic therapy should be selected carefully for individual patients by accounting for the incidence of adverse reactions and interactions with APR.