Clinical efficacy of Qi Di laxative decoction in the treatment of functional constipation: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Functional constipation (FC) is a common gastrointestinal disorder characterized by slow bowel movement and defecation difficulties, significantly impacting patients' quality of life and exerting heavy financial burden to whole society. However, more than 50% FC patients are not completely satisfied with current therapies and alternative therapies are urgently required. Increasing evidences have demonstrated that traditional Chinese medicine has a good therapeutic effect on FC, which is well known for its multitarget and multimode effects on diverse diseases as well as less side effects. Furthermore, studies proved that Qi Di Laxative Decoction was an effective treatment for FC. Its safety and effectiveness should be verified by further studies. METHODS: We will search the following electronic databases for randomized controlled trials to evaluate the clinical efficacy of Qi Di Laxative Decoction in treating FC: Wanfang and Pubmed Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Excerpta Medica database. Each database will be searched from inception to November 2020. The entire process will include study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and meta-analyses. RESULTS: This proposed study will evaluate the clinical efficacy of Qi Di Laxative Decoction for patients with FC. The outcomes will include changes in FC relief and adverse effect. CONCLUSION: This proposed systematic review will evaluate the existing evidence on the clinical efficacy of Qi Di Laxative Decoction in treating FC. DISSEMINATION AND ETHICS: The results of this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication. Because all of the data used in this systematic review and meta-analysis has been published, this review does not require ethical approval. Furthermore, all data will be analyzed anonymously during the review process. OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/M2ESR.

Efficacy of drugs in chronic idiopathic constipation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are several drugs available for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation, but their relative efficacy is unclear because there have been no head-to-head randomised controlled trials. We did a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of these therapies in patients with chronic idiopathic constipation. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Embase Classic, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials published from inception to week 3 June, 2019, to identify randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of drugs (osmotic or stimulant laxatives, elobixibat, linaclotide, lubiprostone, mizagliflozin, naronapride, plecanatide, prucalopride, tegaserod, tenapanor, or velusetrag) in adults with chronic idiopathic constipation. Participants had to be treated for a minimum of 4 weeks, and we extracted data for all endpoints preferentially at 4 weeks, 12 weeks, or both. Trials included in the analysis reported a dichotomous assessment of overall response to therapy (response or no response to therapy). We pooled the data using a random effects model, and reported efficacy and safety of all treatments as a pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs to summarise the effect of each comparison tested. To rank treatments, we used P-scores, which measure the extent of certainty that a treatment is better than another treatment, averaged over all competing treatments. FINDINGS: We identified 33 eligible randomised controlled trials of drugs, comprising 17 214 patients. Based on an endpoint of failure to achieve three or more complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBMs) per week, the stimulant diphenyl methane laxatives bisacodyl and sodium picosulfate, at a dose of 10 mg once daily, were ranked first at 4 weeks (RR 0·55, 95% CI 0·48-0·63, P-score 0·99), and prucalopride 2 mg once daily ranked first at 12 weeks (0·82, 0·78-0·86, P-score 0·96). When response to therapy was defined as falilure to achieve an increase of one or more CSBM per week from baseline, diphenyl methane laxatives at a dose of 10 mg once daily ranked first at 4 weeks (0·44, 0·37-0·54, P-score 0·99), with prucalopride 4 mg once daily ranked first at 12 weeks (0·74, 0·66-0·83, P-score 0·79), although linaclotide 290 µg once daily and prucalopride 2 mg once daily had similar efficacy (P-scores of 0·76 and 0·71, respectively). Bisacodyl ranked last in terms of safety for total number of adverse events and abdominal pain (P-score 0·08). INTERPRETATION: Almost all drugs studied were superior to placebo, according to either failure to achieve three or more CSBMs per week or or failure to achieve an increase of one or more CSBM per week over baseline. Although diphenyl methane laxatives ranked first at 4 weeks, patients with milder symptoms might have been included in these trials. Prucalopride ranked first at 12 weeks, and many of the included trials recruited patients who previously did not respond to laxatives, suggesting that this drug is likely to be the most efficacious for patients with chronic idiopathic constipation. However, because treatment duration in most trials was 4-12 weeks, the long-term relative efficacy of these drugs is unknown. FUNDING: None.

[Treatment of Chronic Functional Constipation during Pregnancy and Lactation]. / Behandlung der chronischen funktionellen Obstipation in der Schwangerschaft und Stillperiode.

Natural fibres (bulk-forming agents), docusate sodium (stool-softener), mineral oils (lubricant laxatives), macrogol (polyethylene glycol, PEG), sugars and sugar alcohols (osmotic laxatives) and anthraquinones and diphenolic laxatives (stimulant laxatives) seem to be safe medicaments regarding teratogenicity and lactation. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) risk categories for these substances taken during pregnancy and lactation are often the result of the lack of studies than of evidence-based information. So risk categories do not help in the decision-making for the right laxative. Alternative solutions such as proposals of the American College of Gastroenterology's Committee on FDA related matters, (ACG-FDA) and the Motherisk Programme try to improve decision-making. For newer compounds such as chloride-channel-activators and procinetics no data regarding safe use in pregnancy and during breast-feeding are available as yet. We suggest the use of macrogol and lactulose as the first-line therapy in treating chronic constipation during pregnancy. Macrogol shows some advantages, such as faster onset of bowel action and fewer flatulences. If this treatment does not work or starts but then stops working, we recommend in the second and third trimenon a second-line treatment with diphenolic laxatives such as bisacodyl and and sodium picosulfate. During pregnancy the decision on the application of these laxatives is largely determined by the side-effects of tenesmus associated with preterm births. During lactation we recommend macrogol (preferable to lactulose due to the lack of data), lactulose, bisacodyl and sodium picosulfate, according to the nature of the conditions.