Search

William D Chey,1 Darren M Brenner,2 Brooks D Cash,3 Martin Hale,4 Jeremy Adler,5 Mansi S Jamindar,6 Carol B Rockett,6 June S Almenoff,6 Enoch Bortey,7 Jeffrey Gudin8 1Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 2Departments of Medicine and Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA; 3Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA; 4Gold Coast Research, L.L.C, Miami, FL, USA; 5Pacific Pain Medicine Consultants, Encinitas, CA, USA; 6Medical Affairs, RedHill Biopharma, Inc, Raleigh, NC, USA; 7Pharmaceutical Development Strategies, L.L.C, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; 8Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USACorrespondence: June S Almenoff, Email jalmenoff@redhillus.comObjective: This study evaluates the onset, magnitude, and consistency of improvement of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) symptoms with naloxegol treatment.Methods: This was a pooled analysis of two Phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies (KODIAC-04/05, NCT01309841/NCT01323790) in patients with chronic non-cancer pain and OIC treated with naloxegol 25mg or 12.5mg daily. This analysis assessed improvements in response rates, frequency of spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) and complete SBMs (CSBM), OIC constipation symptoms (straining, stool consistency), time to first post-dose SBM and CSBM, and onset of adverse events over the 12-week period.Subjects: The population of 1337 subjects had a mean age of 52 years and mean duration of opioid use of 3.6 years at baseline. Mean SBM frequency was 1.4/week.Results: Naloxegol 25mg and 12.5mg demonstrated significantly higher response rates vs placebo (PBO) [41.9% (P < 0.001), 37.8% (P = 0.008), 29.4% respectively]. Rapid (within 1 week) and sustained (over 12 weeks) symptom improvement was significantly greater for naloxegol vs PBO (P < 0.05). Both doses showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in straining, stool consistency, number of SBMs and CSBMs/wk. Significantly shorter times to first post-dose SBM and CSBM were observed with naloxegol vs PBO (SBM HR: 25mg = 1.90, 12.5mg= 1.60; CSBM HR: 25mg = 1.42, 12.5mg = 1.36; P < 0.001 for each regimen). Adverse events occurred more frequently in the naloxegol 25mg group and were most frequently reported during the first week.Conclusion: In patients with chronic non-cancer pain, naloxegol 25mg and 12.5mg demonstrated significantly higher response rates and rapid and sustained improvements in OIC symptoms compared with PBO.Keywords: opioid-induced constipation, naloxegol, clinical trials

Darren M Brenner,1 Spencer D Dorn,2 Ronald P Fogel,3 Jennifer Christie,4 Adam P Laitman,5 Jonathan Rosenberg6 1Internal Medicine-Gastroenterology, Northwestern University-Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA; 2Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; 3Digestive Health Center of Michigan, Chesterfield, MI, USA; 4Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA; 5Salix Pharmaceuticals, Bridgewater, NJ, USA; 6GI Alliance of Illinois, Gurnee, IL, USACorrespondence: Darren M Brenner, MD, FACG, AGAF, RFF, Northwestern Memorial Hospital/Arkes Family Pavilion, 676 N St Clair Street, Suite 1400, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA, Tel +1 312 695 8132, Fax +1 312 695 3999, Email Darren.Brenner@nm.orgPurpose: Patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) experience abdominal pain with altered bowel movements. Plecanatide is indicated as IBS-C treatment in adults. This integrated analysis further characterizes plecanatide efficacy and safety in IBS-C.Patients and Methods: Data pooled from 2 identically designed phase 3 trials included adults with IBS-C randomized to plecanatide 3 mg or 6 mg, or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. A daily diary recorded stool frequency/symptoms, with abdominal pain, bloating, cramping, discomfort, fullness, and straining intensity individually rated. Overall response (primary endpoint) was defined as ≥ 30% improvement from baseline in average worst abdominal pain severity and increase of ≥ 1 complete spontaneous bowel movement, during same week (composite), for ≥ 6 of 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints included sustained response (overall response, plus meeting weekly composite criteria during ≥ 2 of last 4 treatment weeks) and changes from baseline in individual symptoms. Safety assessments included adverse event monitoring.Results: Overall, 2176 patients (74.0% female; mean [SD] age, 43.5 [14.1] years) were included in efficacy analyses (plecanatide 3 mg [n = 724], 6 mg [n = 723], placebo [n = 729]). A significantly greater percentage of patients achieved overall response with plecanatide 3 mg (25.6%) and 6 mg (26.7%) versus placebo (16.0%; both P < 0.001 vs placebo). A significantly greater percentage of patients were sustained responders with plecanatide 3 mg (24.3%) and 6 mg (25.6%) versus placebo (15.6%; both P < 0.001 vs placebo). Significant improvements from baseline in abdominal discomfort, abdominal fullness, abdominal pain, bloating, and cramping occurred as early as Week 1 (Week 2 for abdominal pain) with plecanatide and were maintained through Week 12 versus placebo. Diarrhea, the most common adverse event, occurred in 4.3% (3 mg), 4.0% (6 mg) and 1.0% (placebo) of patients, leading to study discontinuation in 1.2%, 1.4%, and 0 patients, respectively.Conclusion: Plecanatide is safe and effective for treating global and individual IBS-C symptoms.Keywords: abdominal pain, bloating, functional GI disorders, guanylate cyclase-C agonist, irritable bowel syndrome

Emily K Stern, Darren M Brenner Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA Abstract: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is an increasingly prevalent problem in the USA due to the growing use of opioids. A novel class of therapeutics, the peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs), has been developed to mitigate the deleterious effects of opioids in the gastrointestinal tract while maintaining central analgesia and minimizing opioid withdrawal. This review aimed to summarize the literature on naldemedine, the third PAMORA to gain US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for the treatment of OIC in adults with chronic noncancer pain-related syndromes. Naldemedine has a chemical structure similar to naltrexone, an opioid receptor antagonist, with chemical modifications that limit its ability to cross the blood–brain barrier. Naldemedine was evaluated in two Phase II and three Phase III clinical trials prior to gaining FDA approval. In two pivotal identical Phase III trials, COMPOSE-I (NCT 01965158) and COMPOSE-II (NCT 01993940), patients receiving naldemedine were significantly more likely to respond when compared with placebo (COMPOSE-I: 47.6 vs 34.6%, P=0.002 and COMPOSE-II: 52.5 vs 33.6%, P

Lynn R Webster,1 Darren M Brenner,2 Andrew C Barrett,3 Craig Paterson,3 Enoch Bortey,3 William P Forbes3 1PRA Health Sciences, Salt Lake City, UT, 2Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, 3Salix, a Division of Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC, Bridgewater, NJ, USA Background: Subcutaneous methylnaltrexone is efficacious and well tolerated for opioid-induced constipation (OIC) but may theoretically disrupt opioid-mediated analgesia. Methods: Opioid use, pain intensity, and opioid withdrawal (Objective Opioid Withdrawal Scale [OOWS] and Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale [SOWS] scores) were reported in a randomized, double-blind trial with an open-label extension (RCT) and an open-label trial (OLT) evaluating safety in adults with chronic noncancer pain. In the RCT, patients taking ≥50 mg of oral morphine equivalents daily with 0.05 for all). Conclusion: Methylnaltrexone did not affect opioid-mediated analgesia in patients with chronic noncancer pain and OIC. Keywords: Relistor, mu-opioid receptor, antagonist, opioids, tolerance, withdrawal

Webster LR, Brenner DM, Barrett AC, Paterson C, Bortey E, Forbes WP. J Pain Res. 2015;8:771–780.Page 772, left column, line 34, the text “(≥45 mg/kg)” should read “(≥0.45 mg/kg)”.Page 773, left column, Pain intensity, line 4, the text “baseline (BL), day 1, weeks 2 and 4” should read “baseline (BL), weeks 2 and 4”.Page 779, left column, line 16, the text “(ie, 6 weeks)” should read “(ie, 4 weeks)”.Read the original article.

Introduction: This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of tenapanor on abdominal symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation. Abdominal symptoms assessed included pain, discomfort, bloating, cramping, and fullness., Methods: The abdominal symptom data were pooled from 3 randomized controlled trials (NCT01923428, T3MPO-1 [NCT02621892], and T3MPO-2 [NCT02686138]). Weekly scores were calculated for each abdominal symptom, and the Abdominal Score (AS) was derived as the average of weekly scores for abdominal pain, discomfort, and bloating. The overall change from baseline during the 12 weeks was assessed for each symptom weekly score and the AS. The AS 6/12-week and 9/12-week response rates (AS improvement of ≥2 points for ≥6/12- or ≥9/12-week) were also evaluated. The association of weekly AS response status (reduction of ≥30%) with weekly complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) status (=0 and >0) was assessed., Results: Among 1,372 patients (684 tenapanor [50 mg twice a day] and 688 placebo), the least squares mean change from baseline in AS was -2.66 for tenapanor vs -2.09 for placebo ( P < 0.0001). The 6/12-week AS response rate was 44.4% for tenapanor vs 32.4% for placebo ( P < 0.0001), and for 9/12-week AS, 30.6% for tenapanor vs 20.5% for placebo ( P < 0.0001). A significant association between weekly CSBM status and weekly AS response status was observed each week ( P < 0.0001), with a greater proportion achieving an AS reduction in patients with >0 CSBMs in a week., Discussion: Tenapanor significantly reduced abdominal symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation, particularly pain, discomfort, and bloating measured by AS, compared with placebo., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background: Bloating is a bothersome symptom in irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C)., Aim: To evaluate plecanatide efficacy in patients with IBS-C stratified by bloating intensity., Methods: Pooled phase 3 data (2 randomized, controlled IBS-C trials) from adults treated with plecanatide 3 mg or placebo for 12 weeks were analyzed. Patients were stratified post-hoc by baseline bloating severity (11-point scale: mild [≤ 5] and moderate-to-severe [> 5]). Assessments included change from baseline in bloating, abdominal pain, and complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) frequency. Abdominal pain and bloating composite responders were defined as patients with ≥ 30% improvement from baseline in both bloating and abdominal pain at Week 12., Results: At baseline, 1104/1436 patients with IBS-C (76.9%) reported moderate-to-severe bloating. In the moderate-to-severe bloating subgroup, plecanatide significantly reduced bloating severity versus placebo (least-squares mean change [LSMC]: - 1.7 vs - 1.3; P = 0.002), reduced abdominal pain (- 1.7 vs - 1.3; P = 0.006), and increased CSBM frequency (1.4 vs 0.8; P < 0.0001). In the mild bloating subgroup, significant improvements were observed with plecanatide versus placebo for abdominal pain (LSMC: - 1.3 vs - 1.0; P = 0.046) and CSBM frequency (2.0 vs 1.2; P = 0.003) but not bloating (- 0.9 vs - 0.8; P = 0.28). A significantly greater percentage of patients were abdominal pain and bloating composite responders with plecanatide versus placebo (moderate-to-severe bloating: 33.6% vs 26.8% [P = 0.02]; mild bloating: 38.4% vs 27.2% [P = 0.03])., Conclusion: Plecanatide treatment improved IBS-C abdominal and bowel symptoms, including in those who present with moderate-to-severe bloating., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background & Aims: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common, debilitating disorder characterized by abdominal pain and disordered bowel habits. Current pharmacologic treatments often provide incomplete symptom relief and may be poorly tolerated. Furthermore, alleviation of gastrointestinal symptoms does not always translate into improved quality of life for IBS patients. Current treatment guidelines recommend brain-gut behavior therapy (BGBT) in conjunction with other IBS therapies, and, in randomized controlled trials, BGBT has been shown to improve symptoms, patient satisfaction, functioning, and quality of life. Access to BGBT is limited by lack of adequately trained gastrointestinal psychologists, patient time constraints, and cost. Furthermore, clinician knowledge that BGBT is specific, and different from psychotherapy approaches for common mental health disorders, may limit referrals even where available. This review provides an overview of the pathophysiology of IBS, disease burden, unmet therapeutic needs, evidence base of novel digital therapeutics for IBS, and guidance on the introduction and appropriateness of these interventions for patients., Methods: We searched the literature for available published data relating to the use of novel digital therapeutics to provide cognitive behavioral therapy and gut-directed hypnotherapy in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome., Results: Clinical trial data support the development and utility of digital therapeutics designed to deliver self-guided cognitive behavioral therapy and hypnotherapy for the treatment of IBS., Conclusions: BGBTs are effective, guideline-recommended treatments for IBS. Digital therapeutic devices offer accessible, cost-effective treatment options for delivery of adjunctive BGBT for the treatment of IBS. The decision to recommend digital BGBTs should be guided by careful patient assessment that includes mental health screening and risk assessment., (Copyright © 2024 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Functional constipation is the most common of the disorders of gut-brain interaction, affecting approximately 12% of the world population. Although classically considered a chronic condition, many individuals experience shorter yet repetitive bouts of constipation representing a different clinical entity. There has been increased interest in this latter disorder, which has recently been classified as occasional constipation. This Rome Foundation working group document reflects the consensus of an international team of specialists who summarized currently available research to provide a working definition of and treatment algorithm for occasional constipation. The recommendations herein are based on current evidence, accounting for gaps in the literature as well as international variance in definitions and health seeking behaviors for constipation., Methods: The committee members reviewed the scientific literature, focusing specifically on occasional constipation, with the understanding that as a new entity, a paucity of data would be available. We used Rome IV research and clinical definitions to establish the framework for our definition of occasional constipation. Where possible, treatment recommendations were determined on the basis of the earliest extractable data from functional constipation studies, focusing on positive results within the first 2 weeks of treatment. We used the Delphi method to create consensus with 100% agreement between the authors., Results: An evidence-based review of the literature resulted in the definition of occasional constipation as follows: "individuals who experience the presence of at least 1 functional constipation symptom, in the absence of alarm signs or symptoms, occurring at irregular and infrequent intervals, which is bothersome enough to induce a patient to seek medical management." Medical management whether seeking medical care or self-treatment was left to the individual's discretion, and we did not include time anchors because these thresholds require further investigation. Polyethylene glycol and stimulant laxatives are recommended as first-line interventions, whereas magnesium-containing compounds are suggested in individuals failing to respond to these therapies. There are insufficient data to make recommendations for using fiber or stool softeners. Prescription laxatives should be reserved for individuals with chronic constipation., Conclusions: Occasional constipation is a unique clinical entity characterized by infrequent but recurrent symptoms. Data are limited because consensus definitions have been lacking. Establishing a standardized definition and therapeutic recommendations provides a framework for future studies focusing on epidemiologic and symptoms-based outcomes. Further studies are needed to confirm and refine these recommendations., (Copyright © 2024 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Anorectal function testing is traditionally relegated to subspecialty centers. Yet, it is an office-based procedure that appears capable of triaging care for the many patients with Rome IV functional constipation that fail empiric over-the-counter therapy in general gastroenterology, as an alternative to empirical prescription drugs. We aimed to evaluate cost-effectiveness of routine anorectal function testing in this specific population., Methods: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from the patient perspective and a cost-minimization analysis from the insurer perspective to compare 3 strategies: (i) empiric prescription drugs followed by pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) for drug failure, (ii) empiric PFPT followed by prescription drugs for PFPT failure, or (iii) care directed by up-front anorectal function testing. Model inputs were derived from systematic reviews of prospective clinical trials, national cost data sets, and observational cohort studies of the impact of chronic constipation on health outcomes, healthcare costs, and work productivity., Results: The most cost-effective strategy was upfront anorectal function testing to triage patients to appropriate therapy, in which the subset of patients without anal hypocontractility on anorectal manometry and with a balloon expulsion time of at least 6.5 seconds would be referred to PFPT. In sensitivity analysis, empiric PFPT was more cost effective than empiric prescription drugs except for situations in which the primary goal of treatment was to increase bowel movement frequency. If adopted, gastroenterologists would refer ∼17 patients per year to PFPT, supporting feasibility., Discussion: Anorectal function testing seems to be an emergent technology to optimize cost-effective outcomes, overcoming testing costs by phenotyping care., (Copyright © 2023 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background & Aims: Anorectal manometry (ARM) is a comprehensive diagnostic tool for evaluating patients with constipation, fecal incontinence, or anorectal pain; however, it is not widely utilized for reasons that remain unclear. The aim of this roundtable discussion was to critically examine the current clinical practices of ARM and biofeedback therapy by physicians and surgeons in both academic and community settings., Methods: Leaders in medical and surgical gastroenterology and physical therapy with interest in anorectal disorders were surveyed regarding practice patterns and utilization of these technologies. Subsequently, a roundtable was held to discuss survey results, explore current diagnostic and therapeutic challenges with these technologies, review the literature, and generate consensus-based recommendations., Results: ARM identifies key pathophysiological abnormalities such as dyssynergic defecation, anal sphincter weakness, or rectal sensory dysfunction, and is a critical component of biofeedback therapy, an evidence-based treatment for patients with dyssynergic defecation and fecal incontinence. Additionally, ARM has the potential to enhance health-related quality of life and reduce healthcare costs. However, it has significant barriers that include a lack of education and training of healthcare providers regarding the utility and availability of ARM and biofeedback procedures, as well as challenges with condition-specific testing protocols and interpretation. Additional barriers include understanding when to perform, where to refer, and how to use these technologies, and confusion over billing practices., Conclusions: Overcoming these challenges with appropriate education, training, collaborative research, and evidence-based guidelines for ARM testing and biofeedback therapy could significantly enhance patient care of anorectal disorders., (Copyright © 2023 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Chronic diarrhea, defined as diarrhea persisting for more than 4 weeks, affects up to 5% of the population regardless of patient age, sex, race, or socioeconomic status. The impact on patient health and quality of life is substantial, and diagnosis and management of these patients have significant economic consequences for health care services. The differential diagnosis of chronic diarrhea is broad, with etiologies including infections, endocrinopathies, maldigestive/malabsorptive conditions, and disorders of gut-brain interaction. The considerable overlap of symptoms across this spectrum makes accurate diagnosis problematic and may lead to delays in diagnosis or misdiagnosis. In this narrative review, we consider the differential diagnosis of chronic diarrhea, focusing on irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, two conditions that may present similarly but have very different underlying causes and require significantly different management strategies. We outline a 4-step diagnostic strategy and propose a straightforward algorithm to assist in efficiently differentiating irritable bowel syndrome from exocrine pancreatic insufficiency and other causes of chronic diarrhea. We anticipate that these aids will improve diagnostic accuracy, which ultimately should lead to improvements in patients' health-related quality of life and reduce the societal burden on health care services., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Introduction: These post hoc analyses provide clinically relevant data concerning time to response for individual irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) symptoms after linaclotide use., Methods: Time-to-response data were pooled from 4 randomized controlled trials. Response time for abdominal symptoms (pain, discomfort, and bloating) and complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBMs) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method; patients were categorized as early responders (≤4 weeks), late responders (>4-12 weeks), or nonresponders., Results: Among 2,350 patients (1,172 placebo and 1,178 linaclotide 290 μg), >50% of patients with IBS-C who initiated linaclotide treatment experienced a decrease of ≥30% in abdominal pain, discomfort, or bloating within 3-4 weeks (median). The median time to achieving ≥3 CSBMs was 4 weeks. Although not all linaclotide-treated patients responded within 12 weeks, a late response occurred between 4 and 12 weeks in 1 in 6 patients for abdominal pain and in approximately 1 in 10 patients for CSBM frequency. Comparisons of early responders, late responders, and nonresponders for both response definitions indicated that women, Whites, and patients with less severe baseline abdominal symptoms were more likely to respond early., Discussion: Although treatment responses with linaclotide occurred in >50% of patients with IBS-C within 4 weeks of treatment initiation, benefits for individual abdominal symptoms and/or CSBM frequency can still occur between 4 and 12 weeks. A lack of improvement in one symptom does not negate the possibility of response for others, highlighting the importance of discussing all symptoms with patients and not assuming treatment futility at 4 weeks., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Grain amaranths are made up of three New World species of pseudo-cereals with C 4 photosynthesis from the dicotyledonous family Amaranthaceae and the genus Amaranthus . They originate in two ecoregions of the Americas, namely, the inter-Andean valleys of South America and the volcanic axis and lowlands of Mexico and Central America. These correspond to two centers of domestications for Andean and Mesoamerican crops, with one cultivated species found in the first region and two found in the latter region. To date, no core collection has been made for the grain amaranths in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) germplasm system. In this study, our objective was to create a core for the 2,899 gene bank accessions with collection site data by town or farm site of which 1,090 have current geo-referencing of latitude and longitude coordinates. We constituted the core with 260 genotypes of Amaranthus , which we evaluated with 90 single-nucleotide polymorphism markers. Our goal was to distinguish between Andean and Mesoamerican gene pools of amaranths, including the cultivated species and three possible progenitor or wild relative ancestors along with two more species in an outgroup. Population structure, clustering, and discriminant analysis for principal components showed that Andean species Amaranthus caudatus and Amaranthus quitensis shared fewer alleles with Mesoamerican species Amaranthus cruentus and Amaranthus hypochondriacus , compared to each group individually. Amaranthus hybridus was a bridge species that shared alleles with both regions. Molecular markers have the advantage over morphological traits at quickly distinguishing the Andean and Mesoamerican cultivars and have the added benefit of being useful for following inter-species crosses and introgression., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Blair, Londoño, Buitrago-Bitar, Wu and Brenner.)

Background: There are limited data evaluating the activity of cabozantinib (CABO) as second line (2L) therapy post standard of care ipilimumab-nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) or immuno-oncology(IO)/vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (VEGFi) combinations (IOVE)., Materials and Methods: Using the IMDC database, we sought to identify the objective response rate, time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) of 2L CABO after IPI-NIVO, IOVE combinations, pazopanib or sunitinib (PAZ/SUN) or other first line (1L) therapies. Multivariable Cox regression, adjusted for underlying differences in IMDC groups, was used to compare differences in OS for 2L CABO based on preceding therapy., Results: Three hundred and forty-six patients received 2L CABO (78 post IPI NIVO, 46 post IOVE, 161 post PAZ/SUN, 61 post Other). Of the entire cohort, 12.6%, 62.6%, and 24.8% were IMDC favourable, intermediate, and poor risk, respectively. Patients that received 1L IPI-NIVO had a median OS of 21.4 (95% CI, 12.1 - NE [Not evaluable]) months compared to 15.7 (95% CI, 9.3 - NE) months in 1L IOVE and 20.7 (95% CI, 15.6 - 35.6) months in 1L PAZ/SUN, P = .28. Median TTF from the initiation of 2L CABO in the overall population was 7.6 (95% CI, 6.6 - 9.0) months. We were unable to detect a significant difference in 2L CABO OS based on type of 1L therapy received: 1L IPI-NIVO (reference group) vs. 1L IOVE HR 1.73 (95% CI, 0.83 - 3.62 P = .14), 1L PAZ/SUN 1.16 (95% CI, 0.67 - 2.00 P = .60), however given the retrospective observational nature of this work a lack of sufficient power may contribute to this., Conclusion: In a large real world dataset, we identified clinically meaningful activity of 2L CABO after all evaluated contemporary 1L therapies, irrespective of whether the 1L regimen included a VEGFi. These are real world benchmarks with which to counsel our patients., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Recurrent abdominal pain is a common reason for repeated visits to outpatient clinics and emergency departments, reflecting a substantial unmet need for timely and accurate diagnosis. A lack of awareness of some of the rarer causes of recurrent abdominal pain may impede diagnosis and delay effective management. This article identifies some of the key rare but diagnosable causes that are frequently missed by gastroenterologists and provides expert recommendations to support recognition, diagnosis, and management with the ultimate aim of improving patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Chronic constipation is a common gastrointestinal condition, and most individuals self-treat with multiple over-the-counter (OTC) laxatives prior to consulting a health care provider. This brief report is a synopsis of an updated systematic review the authors conducted of published data on the efficacy and safety of OTC treatments to provide evidence-based recommendations. After applying the selection criteria, 41 randomized controlled clinical trials of ≥ 4-week duration were identified and analyzed. Standardized definitions of constipation were applied across these studies; however, definitions for stool frequency and consistency varied. Overall, the short- and long-term efficacy of polyethylene glycol-based preparations and senna were supported by good (grade A) evidence suggesting their use as first-line laxatives. Modest evidence (grade B) supported the use of other agents including the stimulants bisacodyl and sodium picosulfate, fiber, fruit-based laxatives, and magnesium oxide. Additional evidence from rigorously designed studies is needed to support the use of other options for chronic constipation. The OTC products studied were generally well tolerated with common adverse effects being abdominal pain, cramping, bloating, diarrhea, and nausea., Competing Interests: Competing interets: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 American Association of Nurse Practitioners.)

Chronic idiopathic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation are complex, overlapping conditions. Although multiple guidelines have informed healthcare providers on appropriate treatment options for patients with chronic idiopathic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation, little direction is offered on treatment selection. First-line treatment options usually include fiber and over-the-counter osmotic laxatives; however, these are insufficient for many individuals. When these options fail, prescription secretagogues (plecanatide, linaclotide, lubiprostone, and tenapanor [pending commercial availability]), or serotonergic agents (prucalopride and tegaserod) are generally preferred. Individuals experiencing concurrent abdominal pain and/or bloating may experience greater overall improvements from prescription therapies because these agents have been proven to reduce concurrent abdominal and bowel symptoms. Should initial prescription treatments fail, retrying past treatment options (if not adequately trialed initially), combining agents from alternative classes, or use of adjunctive therapies may be considered. Given the broad spectrum of available agents, therapy should be tailored by mutual decision-making between the patient and practitioner. Overall, patients need to be actively monitored and managed to maximize clinical outcomes., (Copyright © 2022 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Patients with chronic idiopathic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation experience an array of gastrointestinal symptoms. Given the subjective nature of these disorders, patient self-reporting is critical to diagnosis and monitoring response to therapy. Unfortunately, many patients are reluctant to discuss bowel symptoms with their healthcare providers. Differences in sex, health literacy, and age can influence symptom reporting. Negative patient-physician relationships and dissatisfaction with care lead patients to seek alternative treatments, switch healthcare providers, or discontinue care. Thus, adopting a patient-centered communication style can help create a shared understanding of patients' symptoms, achieve accurate symptom reporting, expedite diagnosis, and facilitate appropriate treatment plans. Currently, there are multiple symptom and quality-of-life scales available to assist healthcare providers in this endeavor. These scales also allow for the monitoring of constipation-related symptoms and symptom severity. When using patient self-assessments to measure treatment responses, scale selection may depend on the number of symptoms being assessed, the duration and frequency of assessments, and patients' comprehension and language skills., (Copyright © 2022 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background and Aims: Tegaserod is a 5-HT 4 receptor agonist approved for irritable bowel syndrome with constipation in women <65 years of age without a history of cardiovascular ischemic events. Safety data are presented from 2 external adjudications from the 2018 Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee meeting supporting tegaserod's reintroduction after its voluntary 2007 withdrawal. Withdrawal was based on an internal adjudication using pooled placebo-controlled tegaserod data to identify potential cardiovascular ischemic signals., Methods: An independent committee conducted an external adjudication to evaluate 24 possible cardiovascular ischemic events (tegaserod: n = 20; placebo: n = 4) identified internally. A second independent external adjudication further evaluated these events., Results: A total of 18,645 patients were included (tegaserod: n = 11,614; placebo: n = 7031). The first adjudication identified 14 (0.075%) events (tegaserod: n = 13 [0.11%]; placebo: n = 1 [0.014%]). All patients had ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor, and 11 had ≥2. The second adjudication identified 390 events, 24 (0.13%) were classified as probable new or worsening events (tegaserod: 18 [0.16%]; placebo: 6 [0.09%]). For tegaserod, 7 (0.06%) were coronary or cerebrovascular ischemic events compared with 1 (0.01%) for placebo (odds ratio, 4.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-34.74; P = .273). All tegaserod patients reporting cardiovascular events had ≥1 risk, including cardiovascular disease, hyperlipidemia, ≥55 years of age, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and smoking. Women <65 years of age without a history of cardiovascular ischemic events and ≤1 cardiovascular risk factor receiving tegaserod experienced no major adverse cardiovascular event(s)., Conclusions: Two independent, external adjudications suggest that tegaserod is safe for women <65 years of age with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation, no history of cardiovascular ischemic events, and ≤1 cardiovascular risk factor., (Copyright © 2022 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Multiple therapeutic agents are currently available for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation. A better understanding of the mechanism of action of each treatment provides important insights into expected responses and is key to optimizing treatment outcomes. Some constipation treatments, such as stimulant laxatives, may increase bowel movement frequency but are ineffective at relieving, and may even exacerbate, abdominal symptoms. On the contrary, prescription treatments, such as the guanylyl cyclase-C agonists, for example, may improve bowel symptoms and reduce visceral hypersensitivity. This review summarizes the mechanisms of action of commonly used over-the-counter and prescription therapies for chronic idiopathic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation, outlining how these mechanisms contribute to the efficacy and safety of each treatment option., (Copyright © 2022 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background: Effective prescription drug treatment of constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C) requires patients to remain on daily therapy, yet predictive factors to optimize treatment selection are unknown., Aims: We assessed whether common comorbidities including chronic overlapping pain conditions (COPCs), mood disorders, or concurrent medications influence the risk of discontinuing IBS-C prescription drug therapy., Methods: We included all IBS-C patients who initiated treatment with the secretagogues linaclotide or lubiprostone across the Michigan Medicine healthcare system between 2012 and 2016. A Cox proportional hazards model was constructed to model time-to-treatment discontinuation as a valid, quantifiable measure of IBS medication persistence using hazards ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Results: Our cohort included 225 patients on linaclotide and 492 on lubiprostone (mean age 48.3 years, 86.9% women, 46.6% with at least one COPC, 60.3% with at least one mood disorder) with an average follow-up of 2.1 years. Patients with at least one COPC (HR = 0.566; 95%CI = 0.371-0.863) and also women (HR = 0.535; 95%CI = 0.307-0.934) had a lower risk of discontinuing linaclotide, while COPCs predicted a trend toward increased discontinuation of lubiprostone (HR = 1.254; 95%CI = 0.997-1.576). Age, comorbid mood disorders, and baseline use of narcotics or benzodiazepines did not significantly mediate the risk of treatment discontinuation; our findings remained stable in univariate and multivariable analyses., Conclusions: COPCs and sex appear to influence the likelihood of discontinuation of two commonly prescribed secretagogues, while mood disorders, narcotics, and benzodiazepines may not. Routine assessment for comorbid COPCs prior to initiating therapy may optimize IBS-C treatment selection and outcomes in practice., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Opioid-related constipation encompasses constipation directly caused by opioid use (opioid-induced constipation [OIC]) as well as pre-existing constipation worsened by opioid use (opioid-exacerbated constipation [OEC]). Over-the-counter laxatives should be used as first-line agents for both OIC and OEC, given their efficacy, low cost, and high safety profiles. Symptoms of OIC and responses to therapy can be assessed with the Bowel Function Index. Individuals with OIC refractory to laxatives may be responsive to peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists. Although data supporting the superiority of one prescription agent over another is lacking, all have proven effective for the treatment of OIC., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multiple efficacious therapies are currently available for treating irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C). IBS-C specific survey tools that assess symptom relief, treatment satisfaction, and quality of life are important for gauging real-world effectiveness., Aims/methods: This article reviews clinical trial efficacy data as well as survey data on adequate relief and quality of life from pivotal trials for lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide, tenapanor, and tegaserod. A brief discussion of agents in development with novel mechanisms of action is also provided., Results/conclusions: Quality of life and symptom metrics should be standardized and continue to be represented in future IBS-C trials. The choice of agent should be tailored to probability of improving symptoms, safety, tolerability, and cost., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common and burdensome illness. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of the US Food and Drug Administration-approved CIC drugs to evaluate and quantify treatment preferences compared with usual care from insurer and patient perspectives., Methods: We evaluated the subset of patients with CIC and documented failure of over-the-counter (OTC) osmotic or bulk-forming laxatives. A RAND/UCLA consensus panel of 8 neurogastroenterologists informed model design. Treatment outcomes and costs were defined using integrated analyses of registered clinical trials and the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-supported cost databases. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated using health utilities derived from clinical trials. A 12-week time horizon was used., Results: With continued OTC laxatives, CIC-related costs were $569 from an insurer perspective compared with $3,154 from a patient perspective (considering lost wages and out-of-pocket expenses). CIC prescription drugs increased insurer costs by $618-$1,015 but decreased patient costs by $327-$1,117. Effectiveness of CIC drugs was similar (0.02 QALY gained/12 weeks or ∼7 healthy days gained/year). From an insurer perspective, prescription drugs (linaclotide, prucalopride, and plecanatide) seemed less cost-effective than continued OTC laxatives (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio >$150,000/QALY gained). From a patient perspective, the cost-effective algorithm started with plecanatide, followed by choosing between prucalopride and linaclotide starting at the 145-μg dose (favoring prucalopride among patients whose disease affects their work productivity). The patient perspective was driven by drug tolerability and treatment effects on quality of life., Discussion: Addressing costs at a policy level has the potential to enable patients and clinicians to move from navigating barriers in treatment access toward truly optimizing treatment choice., (Copyright © 2021 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Irritable bowel syndrome with constipation is a common disorder that significantly impairs quality of life. There are now multiple classes of therapeutics that have been shown via rigorous clinical testing to improve the abdominal and bowel symptoms attributed to irritable bowel syndrome with constipation. These include the secretagogues (lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide, tenapenor) and the prokinetic agent tegaserod. This article highlights the pivotal evidence for these agents and most recent treatment guidance from the major North American gastroenterological societies. When pharmaceuticals are used, a patient-specific approach based on efficacy, safety, tolerability, access, and affordability is recommended., Competing Interests: Disclosure J.J. Liu does not have any disclosures to report. D.M. Brenner has served as an advisor, consultant, or speaker for the following: Allergan (AbbVie), Ironwood, Salix, Takeda, Alphasigma, Arena, and Alynlam Pharmaceuticals. He is also supported in research by an unrestricted gift from the Irene D. Pritzker Foundation., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists such as methylnaltrexone (MNTX, Relistor ® ) are indicated for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation (OIC). The structural properties unique to MNTX restrict it from traversing the blood-brain barrier (BBB); however, the BBB may become more permeable in patients with brain metastases. We investigated whether the presence of brain metastases in cancer patients compromises the central effects of opioids among patients receiving MNTX for OIC., Methods: This post hoc analysis of pooled data from 3 randomized, placebo-controlled trials included cancer patients with OIC who received MNTX or placebo. Endpoints included changes from baseline in pain scores, rescue-free laxation (RFL) within 4 or 24 h of the first dose, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), including those potentially related to opioid withdrawal symptoms., Results: Among 356 cancer patients in the pooled population, 47 (MNTX n = 27; placebo n = 20) had brain metastases and 309 (MNTX n = 172; placebo n = 137) did not have brain metastases. No significant differences in current pain, worst pain, or change in pain scores from baseline were observed between patients treated with MNTX or placebo. Among patients with brain metastases, a significantly greater proportion of patients who received MNTX versus placebo achieved an RFL within 4 h after the first dose (70.4% vs 15.0%, respectively, p = 0.0002). TEAEs were similar between treatment groups and were generally gastrointestinal in nature and not related to opioid withdrawal., Conclusion: Focal disruptions of the BBB caused by brain metastases did not appear to alter central nervous system penetrance of MNTX., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Chronic abdominal pain is a common gastrointestinal (GI) symptom that characterizes many functional GI disorders/disorders of gut-brain interaction, including irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, and centrally mediated abdominal pain syndrome. The symptoms of abdominal pain in these highly prevalent disorders are often treated with antispasmodic agents. Antispasmodic treatment includes a broad range of therapeutic classes with different mechanisms of action, including anticholinergic/antimuscarinic agents (inhibition of GI smooth muscle contraction), calcium channel inhibitors (inhibition of calcium transport into GI smooth muscle), and direct smooth muscle relaxants (inhibition of sodium and calcium transport). The aim of this review article was to examine the efficacy and safety of antispasmodics available in North America (e.g., alverine, dicyclomine, hyoscine, hyoscyamine, mebeverine, otilonium, pinaverium, and trimebutine) for the treatment of chronic abdominal pain in patients with common disorders of gut-brain interaction. For the agents examined, comparisons of studies are limited by inconsistencies in treatment dosing and duration, patient profiles, and diagnostic criteria employed. Furthermore, variability in study end points limits comparisons. Risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting bias also differed among studies, and in many cases, risks were considered "unclear." The antispasmodics evaluated in this review, which differ in geographic availability, were found to vary dramatically in efficacy and safety. Given these caveats, each agent should be considered on an individual basis, rather than prescribed based on information across the broad class of agents., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Introduction: Tegaserod was the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved drug for irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) in women and was recently reapproved for use. Recognizing that clinical trials were performed almost 20 years ago, we performed an integrated analysis on patient-reported outcomes relevant to current practice including previously unpublished data., Methods: Data from 4 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trials evaluating tegaserod 6 mg b.i.d. in patients with IBS-C were pooled. We analyzed 2 groups: all women (overall population) and women younger than 65 years without a history of cardiovascular ischemic events (indicated population). The primary end point was subjective global assessment of IBS-C symptom relief. Responders rated themselves as "considerably" or "completely" relieved ≥50% of the time or at least "somewhat relieved" 100% of the time over the last 4 weeks., Results: The overall and indicated populations included 2,939 (tegaserod [n = 1,478]; placebo [n = 1,461]) and 2,752 (tegaserod [n = 1,386]; placebo [n = 1,366]) participants, respectively. The pooled odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for clinical response during the last 4 weeks in the overall and indicated populations with tegaserod were 1.37 (1.18, 1.59; P < 0.001) and 1.38 (1.18, 1.61; P < 0.001). In the overall and indicated populations, clinical response rates for tegaserod during the last 4 weeks were 43.3% and 44.1% versus 35.9% and 36.5% with placebo (P < 0.001). Adverse events were similar between groups. No significant cardiovascular events related to tegaserod were observed in patients with ≤1 cardiac risk factor., Discussion: Tegaserod 6 mg b.i.d. reduced IBS-C symptoms in overall and US Food and Drug Administration-indicated populations (women aged <65 years with no history of cardiovascular ischemic events)., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Introduction: Constipation is commonly treated with over-the-counter (OTC) products whose efficacy and safety remain unclear. We performed a systematic review of OTC therapies for chronic constipation and provide evidence-based recommendations., Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase for randomized controlled trials of ≥4-week duration that evaluated OTC preparations between 2004 and 2020. Studies were scored using the US Preventive Services Task Force criteria (0-5 scale) including randomization, blinding, and withdrawals. The strengths of evidence were adjudicated within each therapeutic category, and recommendations were graded (A, B, C, D, and I) based on the level of evidence (level I, good; II, fair; or III, poor)., Results: Of 1,297 studies identified, 41 met the inclusion criteria. There was good evidence (grade A recommendation) for the use of the osmotic laxative polyethylene glycol (PEG) and the stimulant senna; moderate evidence (grade B) for psyllium, SupraFiber, magnesium salts, stimulants (bisacodyl and sodium picosulfate), fruit-based laxatives (kiwi, mango, prunes, and ficus), and yogurt with galacto-oligosaccharide/prunes/linseed oil; and insufficient evidence (grade I) for polydextrose, inulin, and fructo-oligosaccharide. Diarrhea, nausea, bloating, and abdominal pain were common adverse events, but no serious adverse events were reported., Discussion: The spectrum of OTC products has increased and quality of evidence has improved, but methodological issues including variability in study design, primary outcome measures, trial duration, and small sample sizes remain. We found good evidence to recommend polyethylene glycol or senna as first-line laxatives and moderate evidence supporting fiber supplements, fruits, stimulant laxatives, and magnesium-based products. For others, further validation with more rigorously designed studies is warranted., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background: Acute colonic pseudo-obstruction (ACPO) is characterized by acute colonic dilation in the absence of anatomical obstruction. Neostigmine is an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor recommended as first-line salvage therapy for uncomplicated ACPO. Decompressive colonoscopy is recommended if neostigmine is contraindicated or unsuccessful. There is a need to better characterize relative efficacy and factors impacting treatment choice. The aim of the study was to examine the use, efficacy, and safety of neostigmine and decompressive colonoscopy in the management of ACPO at a single academic center., Methods: Patients ≥ 18 years of age meeting established criteria for uncomplicated ACPO and with cecal diameter ≥ 10 cm on imaging between 1999 and 2019 were identified. Individuals were categorized as having received supportive care alone or subsequent trials of neostigmine or decompressive colonoscopy. Demographics and pre- and post-intervention data were collected, including indication and contraindication to intervention used, time to intervention, initial response, and adverse events., Results: In 46 cases of ACPO (N = 42 patients), all but one individual received initial supportive care. Seven responded to conservative measures alone. Of the patients failing supportive care, 15 cases were initially treated with neostigmine (response rate 86.7%) and 24 initially underwent decompressive colonoscopy (response rate 95.8%) (P = 0.390). One episode of transient bradycardia, resolved with atropine, occurred in the neostigmine group. One patient experienced respiratory instability during colonoscopy., Conclusions: Both neostigmine and decompressive colonoscopy appear effective for treating uncomplicated ACPO in individuals failing conservative therapy. Adverse events were infrequent in both cohorts. Future prospective studies examining treatment for ACPO should focus on whether either intervention is superior to the other., Competing Interests: None to declare., (Copyright 2021, Liu et al.)

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D) is a chronic disorder of gut-brain interaction that negatively affects work productivity and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). IBS-D therapeutic options are limited and include loperamide, an over-the-counter μ-opioid receptor agonist commonly used as an antidiarrheal agent, and eluxadoline, a mixed μ- and κ-opioid receptor agonist and δ-opioid receptor antagonist approved in the United States for the treatment of IBS-D in adults. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the effect of eluxadoline on work productivity and HRQOL in patients with IBS-D with previous inadequate response to loperamide. METHODS: The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire for IBS-D (WPAI:IBS-D), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Healthy Days Core Module (CDC HRQOL-4), and EuroQoL-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) instruments were administered at baseline and week 12 of a phase 4 clinical trial (RELIEF), assessing the efficacy and safety of eluxadoline treatment in adults with IBS-D reporting previous inadequate response to loperamide. Changes from baseline to week 12 for each assessment were evaluated using an analysis of covariance model. Indirect costs were calculated by converting overall work productivity losses into monetary values. RESULTS: A total of 346 patients were randomized to either eluxadoline (n = 172) or placebo (n = 174). From baseline to week 12, compared with placebo, twice-daily treatment with eluxadoline resulted in significantly greater reductions in absenteeism (2.6%; P = 0.046). Numerically greater decreases in presenteeism, overall work productivity loss, and daily activity impairment were also observed in patients receiving eluxadoline compared with those receiving placebo ( P = not significant for each). Numerical reductions in overall work productivity loss from baseline to week 12 translate to approximately 2.4 hours per patient per week (123 hours annually) and correspond to an avoided overall work loss of $4,503 annually for an employee with IBS-D treated with eluxadoline. In addition, from baseline to week 12, treatment with eluxadoline led to a significantly greater reduction in the number of unhealthy days experienced (-1.7 days; P = 0.042), as well as numerical improvements in EQ-5D measures in comparison with placebo ( P = not significant for each). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with IBS-D reporting inadequate response to loperamide, eluxadoline treatment was associated with significant reductions in absenteeism and the number of unhealthy days experienced. Eluxadoline treatment of IBS-D may lead to significant cost savings via mitigation of losses in work productivity. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Allergan plc (before acquisition by AbbVie, Inc.). Allergan plc and/or AbbVie, Inc., was involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of the data, writing of the report, and the decision to submit the report for publication. Abel and Burslem are employees of AbbVie, Inc., and own stock/stock options. Brenner has served as a consultant, speaker, and/or advisor for Allergan plc (before acquisition by AbbVie, Inc.), Alnylam, Alpha Sigma, Arena, Bayer, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Shire, Synergy, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. He is also supported in research by an unrestricted gift from the Irene D. Pritzker Foundation. Sayuk has served as a consultant and speaker for Allergan plc (before acquisition by AbbVie, Inc.), Gi Health Foundation, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Salix Pharmaceuticals, and Synergy. Portions of the current work were presented at AMCP Nexus; October 22-25, 2018; Orlando, FL.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a highly prevalent, chronic disorder that significantly reduces patients' quality of life. Advances in diagnostic testing and in therapeutic options for patients with IBS led to the development of this first-ever American College of Gastroenterology clinical guideline for the management of IBS using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Twenty-five clinically important questions were assessed after a comprehensive literature search; 9 questions focused on diagnostic testing; 16 questions focused on therapeutic options. Consensus was obtained using a modified Delphi approach, and based on GRADE methodology, we endorse the following: We suggest that a positive diagnostic strategy as compared to a diagnostic strategy of exclusion be used to improve time to initiating appropriate therapy. We suggest that serologic testing be performed to rule out celiac disease in patients with IBS and diarrhea symptoms. We suggest that fecal calprotectin be checked in patients with suspected IBS and diarrhea symptoms to rule out inflammatory bowel disease. We recommend a limited trial of a low fermentable oligosaccharides, disacchardies, monosaccharides, polyols (FODMAP) diet in patients with IBS to improve global symptoms. We recommend the use of chloride channel activators and guanylate cyclase activators to treat global IBS with constipation symptoms. We recommend the use of rifaximin to treat global IBS with diarrhea symptoms. We suggest that gut-directed psychotherapy be used to treat global IBS symptoms. Additional statements and information regarding diagnostic strategies, specific drugs, doses, and duration of therapy can be found in the guideline., (Copyright © 2020 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

This review aims to summarize the efficacy data for naldemedine, a member of the novel peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs), which gained US FDA approval for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation in adults with chronic noncancer pain-related syndromes in 2017. In Phase III trials, patients receiving naldemedine were significantly more likely to meet the primary end point ≥3 spontaneous bowel movements/week and an increase of ≥1 spontaneous bowel movement/week from baseline for at least 9/12 weeks compared to placebo (p < 0.0001). The most frequent adverse events were abdominal pain (8%) and diarrhea (7%). Based on available data, naldemedine appears to be an effective and safe first-line therapy for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation in adults with chronic noncancer pain.

Constipation is the most common adverse event (AE) of opioid therapy. This multicenter, phase 2 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of linaclotide in treating opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in patients with chronic noncancer pain syndromes (NCT02270983). Adults with OIC (<3 spontaneous bowel movements [SBMs]/week) related to chronic noncancer pain were randomized 1:1:1 to receive linaclotide 145 µg, linaclotide 290 µg, or placebo once daily for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 8-week SBM frequency rate (SBMs/week). Secondary efficacy endpoints included 6/8-week SBM 3 + 1 responders, time to first SBM, and changes from baseline in 8-week stool consistency, abdominal bloating, and straining. Additional endpoints included treatment satisfaction and adequate relief responders. In total, 254 patients were randomized: 87, 88, and 79 received linaclotide 145 µg, linaclotide 290 µg, and placebo, respectively. The mean changes from baseline in SBMs/week during the treatment period were 2.9 and 3.5 in the linaclotide 145 and 290 µg groups (P < 0.01 for both doses), respectively, vs 1.6 in the placebo group. Diarrhea, the most common AE, was generally mild, resulting in 1.1%, 5.7%, and 1.3% of patients discontinuing in the linaclotide 145 μg, linaclotide 290 μg, and placebo groups, respectively. No serious AEs related to diarrhea were reported in any treatment group. Compared with placebo, linaclotide-treated patients had significant improvements in stool consistency, straining, abdominal bloating, and treatment satisfaction scores (P < 0.05). Linaclotide significantly improved OIC symptoms and was well tolerated in patients with chronic noncancer pain.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a functional bowel disorder characterized by abdominal pain and alterations in stool form and/or frequency, leading to reduced quality of life. Pharmacologic agents currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D) in adults are the nonsystemic antibiotic rifaximin, the mixed µ- and κ-opioid receptor agonist/δ-opioid antagonist eluxadoline, and the selective serotonin 5-HT 3 antagonist alosetron (the last of which is indicated only in women with severe IBS-D refractory to conventional therapy). Both eluxadoline and alosetron are administered as chronic daily therapies; rifaximin is given as a 2-week course of treatment with repeat courses administered as needed for symptom recurrence. Presumed mechanisms of action of rifaximin include modulation of the gut microbiota, anti-inflammatory activity, normalization of visceral hypersensitivity, and reduction in intestinal permeability. Eluxadoline targets opioid receptors in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, resulting in decreased GI motility, fluid secretion, and visceral pain perception. Alosetron antagonizes serotonergic afferent neural signals and also slows GI motility. The efficacy and safety of these agents have been investigated in several rigorous clinical trials, and it has been demonstrated that they improve global and individual IBS symptoms. This review highlights the pivotal efficacy and safety data of the three pharmacologic agents currently indicated in the USA for the management of IBS-D in adults.Funding: Salix Pharmaceuticals.

Objectives: Irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D) is a functional gastrointestinal disorder with limited effective treatment options. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of eluxadoline in patients with IBS-D who reported inadequate symptom control with prior loperamide., Methods: Three hundred forty-six adults with IBS-D (Rome III criteria) were randomly assigned to placebo or eluxadoline 100 mg twice daily for 12 weeks. Patients recorded daily IBS-D symptoms, including worst abdominal pain (WAP) and stool consistency (through Bristol Stool Scale). The primary endpoint was proportion of composite responders, defined as patients who met daily composite response criteria (≥40% WAP improvement and <5 Bristol Stool Scale score) for at least 50% of treatment days, and recorded ≥60 days of diary entries over the 12-week period., Results: Over 12 weeks, a significantly greater proportion of eluxadoline patients achieved the primary composite responder endpoint compared to placebo (22.7% vs 10.3%, P = 0.002), and component endpoints of improvements in stool consistency (27.9% vs 16.7%, P = 0.01) and WAP (43.6% vs 31.0%, P = 0.02). Additionally, a greater proportion of eluxadoline patients met the composite responder endpoint assessed at monthly intervals compared to placebo (weeks 1-4: 14.0% vs 6.9%, P = 0.03; weeks 5-8: 26.7% vs 14.9%, P = 0.006; weeks 9-12: 30.8% vs 16.7%, P = 0.002). Rates of adverse events were comparable in both groups (37.4% vs 35.3%); no treatment-related serious adverse event, cases of sphincter of Oddi spasm, or pancreatitis were reported., Discussion: Eluxadoline appears safe and effective for treating IBS-D symptoms in patients with an intact gallbladder reporting inadequate relief with prior loperamide use.

Objectives: To determine patient preference for treating opioid-induced constipation (OIC) using naloxegol or polyethylene glycol (PEG) 3350 in patients receiving opioids for noncancer pain., Methods: This crossover study included two 2-week active treatment periods, each preceded by a 1-week washout period (NCT03060512). Individuals with baseline Bowel Function Index scores ≥30 were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment sequences (naloxegol/PEG 3350 or PEG 3350/naloxegol). Patient preference (primary end point) was measured at the end of the second treatment period., Results: Of 276 patients randomized, 246 completed both treatment periods and reported preference (per protocol). Similar proportions of patients reported overall preference for naloxegol (50.4%) or PEG 3350 (48.0%; P = 0.92); 1.6% reported no preference. Medication characteristics influencing preference were similar for both treatments, except convenience and working quickly, which were strong influences of preference for higher proportions of patients preferring naloxegol (69.9% and 39.0%, respectively) vs those preferring PEG 3350 (29.9% and 27.4%, respectively). Patients aged <50 years or receiving laxatives within the previous 2 weeks generally preferred naloxegol. Changes from baseline in overall Bowel Function Index and Patient Global Impression of Change scores were similar between treatments, but analyses according to treatment preference revealed clinical improvement aligned with reported preference. Safety profiles were generally consistent with known medication profiles., Conclusions: Almost equal proportions of patients with OIC reported similar preference for daily naloxegol or PEG 3350 treatment, and their preference was generally supported by clinically relevant and measurable improvements in OIC symptoms.

Objective: Opioids are increasingly prescribed in the West and have deleterious GI consequences. Pharmacological therapies to treat opioid-induced constipation (OIC) are available, but their relative efficacy is unclear. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to address this deficit in current knowledge., Design: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials through to December 2017 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological therapies in the treatment of adults with OIC. Trials had to report a dichotomous assessment of overall response to therapy, and data were pooled using a random effects model. Efficacy and safety of pharmacological therapies was reported as a pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs to summarise the effect of each comparison tested and ranked treatments according to their P-score., Results: Twenty-seven eligible RCTs of pharmacological therapies, containing 9149 patients, were identified. In our primary analysis, using failure to achieve an average of ≥3 bowel movements (BMs) per week with an increase of ≥1 BM per week over baseline or an average of ≥3 BMs per week, to define non-response, the network meta-analysis ranked naloxone first in terms of efficacy (RR=0.65; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.80, P-score=0.84), and it was also the safest drug. When non-response to therapy was defined using failure to achieve an average of ≥3 BMs per week, with an increase of ≥1 BM per week over baseline, naldemedinewas ranked first (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.77, P score=0.91) and alvimopan second (RR=0.74; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94, P-score=0.71)., Conclusion: In network meta-analysis, naloxone and naldemedine appear to be the most efficacious treatments for OIC. Naloxone was the safest of these agents., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PL, NEB and ACF: none declared. DMB has acted as a consultant, advisor and speaker for Synergy, Allergan, Ironwood, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Shionogi, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Medscape LLC, Medtronic and GI Health Foundation., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2019. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)