American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common disorder associated with significant impairment in quality of life. This clinical practice guideline, jointly developed by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology, aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of CIC in adults. METHODS: The American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that conducted systematic reviews of the following agents: fiber, osmotic laxatives (polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, lactulose), stimulant laxatives (bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, senna), secretagogues (lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide), and serotonin type 4 agonist (prucalopride). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to assess the certainty of evidence for each intervention. The Evidence to Decision framework was used to develop clinical recommendations based on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 10 recommendations for the pharmacological management of CIC in adults. Based on available evidence, the panel made strong recommendations for the use of polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride for CIC in adults. Conditional recommendations were made for the use of fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone. DISCUSSION: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the various over-the-counter and prescription pharmacological agents available for the treatment of CIC. The guidelines are meant to provide a framework for approaching the management of CIC; clinical providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences as well as medication cost and availability. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to help guide future research opportunities and enhance the care of patients with chronic constipation.

Comparative profiles of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat for chronic constipation: a systematic literature review with meta-analysis and number needed to treat/harm.

OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively evaluate the efficacy, safety, patient symptoms, and quality-of-life (QoL) of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat as treatment for chronic constipation (CC). DESIGN: Systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis (MA). Literature searches were conducted on PubMed and Embase using the Ovid platform. METHODS: SLR including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies was conducted to identify the overall efficacy and safety of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat. Thereafter, MA was performed using only RCTs. The number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) analyses were additionally conducted. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was efficacy regarding change in spontaneous bowel movements. Secondary outcomes included safety, constipation-related symptoms, and QoL. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria for the SLR: 17 RCTs, 4 observational studies, and 3 single-arm trials. Feasibility assessment for the MA resulted in 14 studies available for safety data analysis, and 8 available for efficacy analysis, respectively. Three drugs showed similar efficacy in the MA and NNT analysis. However, the NNH analysis revealed distinct safety profiles: lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat were linked to the highest risk of nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain, respectively. CONCLUSION: The current study provides an updated overview of the efficacy, safety, patient symptoms, and QoL of the three drugs with different mechanisms of action for CC treatment.The findings could help physicians adopt an individualized approach for treating patients with CC in clinical practice.

Efficacy of lubiprostone for functional constipation treatment in adolescents and children: Randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Adolescent and pediatric functional constipation (FC) is a common clinical problem. Currently, data on lubiprostone for the treatment of pediatric FC are scarce. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of lubiprostone in the treatment of pediatric FC. METHODS: In a single-blinded, randomized controlled study, we included 280 patients aged 8-18 years with FC. Patients were randomized either to a weight-based lubiprostone dose (n = 140) or conventional laxatives (n = 140), including lactulose, bisacodyl, or sodium picosulfate, for 12 weeks, followed by 4 weeks posttreatment follow-up. RESULTS: Improvement in constipation was achieved in 128 (91.4%) patients in the lubiprostone group, and in 48 (34.3%) patients of the conventional therapy group (p < 0.001) and was sustained after treatment discontinuation. One quarter of the lubiprostone group experienced the first spontaneous bowel motion within 48 h after dose initiation. A total of 75.7% of the lubiprostone group could achieve and sustain Bristol stool form of 3 or 4 during the last 4 weeks of therapy and through the 4 weeks of follow-up versus 50 (35.7%) patients in the conventional therapy group (p < 0.001). No life-threatening adverse drug reactions were encountered, and no treatment-related discontinuation. Mild self-limited colicky abdominal pain and headache were the most prevalent side effects in the lubiprostone group. CONCLUSIONS: Lubiprostone is an effective and well-tolerated pharmacotherapy for youthful age and pediatric age groups, which may alter the paradigm of pediatric FC treatment.

Treatments for intractable constipation in childhood.

BACKGROUND: Constipation that is prolonged and does not resolve with conventional therapeutic measures is called intractable constipation. The treatment of intractable constipation is challenging, involving pharmacological or non-pharmacological therapies, as well as surgical approaches. Unresolved constipation can negatively impact quality of life, with additional implications for health systems. Consequently, there is an urgent need to identify treatments that are efficacious and safe. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatments used for intractable constipation in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers up to 23 June 2023. We also searched reference lists of included studies for relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological, non-pharmacological, or surgical treatment to placebo or another active comparator, in participants aged between 0 and 18 years with functional constipation who had not responded to conventional medical therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were symptom resolution, frequency of defecation, treatment success, and adverse events; secondary outcomes were stool consistency, painful defecation, quality of life, faecal incontinence frequency, abdominal pain, hospital admission for disimpaction, and school absence. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each primary outcome. MAIN RESULTS: This review included 10 RCTs with 1278 children who had intractable constipation. We assessed one study as at low risk of bias across all domains. There were serious concerns about risk of bias in six studies. One study compared the injection of 160 units botulinum toxin A (n = 44) to unspecified oral stool softeners (n = 44). We are very uncertain whether botulinum toxin A injection improves treatment success (risk ratio (RR) 37.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.31 to 257.94; very low certainty evidence, downgraded due to serious concerns with risk of bias and imprecision). Frequency of defecation was reported only for the botulinum toxin A injection group (mean interval of 2.6 days). The study reported no data for the other primary outcomes. One study compared erythromycin estolate (n = 6) to placebo (n = 8). The only primary outcome reported was adverse events, which were 0 in both groups. The evidence is of very low certainty due to concerns with risk of bias and serious imprecision. One study compared 12 or 24 µg oral lubiprostone (n = 404) twice a day to placebo (n = 202) over 12 weeks. There may be little to no difference in treatment success (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.92; low certainty evidence). We also found that lubiprostone probably results in little to no difference in adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.21; moderate certainty evidence). The study reported no data for the other primary outcomes. One study compared three-weekly rectal sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate and sorbitol enemas (n = 51) to 0.5 g/kg/day polyethylene glycol laxatives (n = 51) over a 52-week period. We are very uncertain whether rectal sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate and sorbitol enemas improve treatment success (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.14; very low certainty evidence, downgraded due to serious concerns with risk of bias and imprecision). Results of defecation frequency per week was reported only as modelled means using a linear mixed model. The study reported no data for the other primary outcomes. One study compared biofeedback therapy (n = 12) to no intervention (n = 12). We are very uncertain whether biofeedback therapy improves symptom resolution (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.08 to 5.79; very low certainty evidence, downgraded due to serious concerns with risk of bias and imprecision). The study reported no data for the other primary outcomes. One study compared 20 minutes of intrarectal electromotive botulinum toxin A using 2800 Hz frequency and botulinum toxin A dose 10 international units/kg (n = 30) to 10 international units/kg botulinum toxin A injection (n = 30). We are very uncertain whether intrarectal electromotive botulinum toxin A improves symptom resolution (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.22; very low certainty evidence) or if it increases the frequency of defecation (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -1.87 to 1.87; very low certainty evidence). We are also very uncertain whether intrarectal electromotive botulinum toxin A has an improved safety profile (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.00; very low certainty evidence). The evidence for these results is of very low certainty due to serious concerns with risk of bias and imprecision. The study did not report data on treatment success. One study compared the injection of 60 units botulinum toxin A (n = 21) to myectomy of the internal anal sphincter (n = 21). We are very uncertain whether botulinum toxin A injection improves treatment success (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.34; very low certainty evidence). No adverse events were recorded. The study reported no data for the other primary outcomes. One study compared 0.04 mg/kg oral prucalopride (n = 107) once daily to placebo (n = 108) over eight weeks. Oral prucalopride probably results in little or no difference in defecation frequency (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.06; moderate certainty evidence); treatment success (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.72; moderate certainty evidence); and adverse events (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.39; moderate certainty evidence). The study did not report data on symptom resolution. One study compared transcutaneous electrical stimulation to sham stimulation, and another study compared dietitian-prescribed Mediterranean diet with written instructions versus written instructions. These studies did not report any of our predefined primary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified low to moderate certainty evidence that oral lubiprostone may result in little to no difference in treatment success and adverse events compared to placebo. Based on moderate certainty evidence, there is probably little or no difference between oral prucalopride and placebo in defecation frequency, treatment success, or adverse events. For all other comparisons, the certainty of the evidence for our predefined primary outcomes is very low due to serious concerns with study limitations and imprecision. Consequently, no robust conclusions could be drawn.

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on the Pharmacological Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Constipation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common disorder of gut-brain interaction associated with significant disease burden. This American Gastroenterological Association guideline is intended to support practitioners in decisions about the use of medications for the pharmacological management of IBS-C and is an update of a prior technical review and guideline. METHODS: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. The technical review panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients and conducted an evidence review of the following agents: tenapanor, plecanatide, linaclotide, tegaserod, lubiprostone, polyethylene glycol laxatives, tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and antispasmodics. The Guideline Panel reviewed the evidence and used the Evidence-to-Decision Framework to develop recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The panel agreed on 9 recommendations for the management of patients with IBS-C. The panel made a strong recommendation for linaclotide (high certainty) and conditional recommendations for tenapanor, plecanatide, tegaserod, and lubiprostone (moderate certainty), polyethylene glycol laxatives, tricyclic antidepressants, and antispasmodics (low certainty). The panel made a conditional recommendation against the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (low certainty).

American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common disorder associated with significant impairment in quality of life. This clinical practice guideline, jointly developed by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology, aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of CIC in adults. METHODS: The American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that conducted systematic reviews of the following agents: fiber, osmotic laxatives (polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, lactulose), stimulant laxatives (bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, senna), secretagogues (lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide), and serotonin type 4 agonist (prucalopride). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to assess the certainty of evidence for each intervention. The Evidence to Decision framework was used to develop clinical recommendations based on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 10 recommendations for the pharmacological management of CIC in adults. Based on available evidence, the panel made strong recommendations for the use of polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride for CIC in adults. Conditional recommendations were made for the use of fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone. DISCUSSION: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the various over-the-counter and prescription pharmacological agents available for the treatment of CIC. The guidelines are meant to provide a framework for approaching the management of CIC; clinical providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences as well as medication cost and availability. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to help guide future research opportunities and enhance the care of patients with chronic constipation.

Receptor-mediated activation of CFTR via prostaglandin signaling pathways in the airway.

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a genetic disease caused by mutations of the gene encoding a cAMP-activated Cl- channel, the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR). CFTR modulator therapies consist of small-molecule drugs that rescue mutant CFTR. Regimens of single or combinations of CFTR modulators still rely on endogenous levels of cAMP to regulate CFTR activity. We investigated CFTR activation by the natural mediator prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) and lubiprostone (a Food and Drug Administration-approved drug known to target prostaglandin receptors) and tested the hypothesis that receptor-mediated CFTR activators can be used in combination with currently available CFTR modulators to increase function of mutant CFTR. Primary-cultured airway epithelia were assayed in Ussing chambers. Experimental CFTR activators and established CFTR modulators were applied for 24 h and/or acutely and analyzed for their effect on CFTR activity as measured by changes in short-circuit current (ISC). In non-CF airway epithelia, acute application of lubiprostone and PGE2 activated CFTR to the levels comparable to forskolin (Fsk). Pretreatment (24 h) with antagonists to prostaglandin receptors EP2 and EP4 abolished the ability of lubiprostone to acutely activate CFTR. In F508del homozygous airway epithelia pretreated with the triple combination of elexacaftor, tezacaftor, and ivacaftor (ELEXA/TEZ/IVA; i.e., Trikafta), acute application of lubiprostone was able to maximally activate CFTR. Prolonged (24 h) cotreatment of F508del homozygous epithelia with ELEXA/TEZ/IVA and lubiprostone increased acute CFTR activation by ∼60% compared with the treatment with ELEXA/TEZ/IVA alone. This work establishes the feasibility of targeting prostaglandin receptors to activate CFTR on the airway epithelia and demonstrates that cotreatment with lubiprostone can further restore modulator-rescued CFTR.

Lubiprostone for Pediatric Functional Constipation: Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Study With Long-term Extension.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Pediatric functional constipation (PFC) is a common problem in children that causes distress and presents treatment challenges to health care professionals. We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial (study 1) in patients with PFC (6-17 years of age) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lubiprostone, followed by an open-label extension for those who completed the placebo-controlled phase (study 2). METHODS: Study 1 (NCT02042183) was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week study evaluating the efficacy and safety of lubiprostone 12 µg twice daily (BID) and 24 µg BID. Study 2 (NCT02138136) was a phase 3, long-term, open-label extension of study 1. In both studies, lubiprostone doses were based on patients' weight. Efficacy was assessed solely based on study 1, with a primary endpoint of overall spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) response (increase of ≥1 SBM/wk vs baseline and ≥3 SBMs/wk for ≥9 weeks, including 3 of the final 4 weeks). RESULTS: 606 patients were randomized to treatment (placebo: n = 202; lubiprostone: n = 404) in study 1. No statistically significant difference in overall SBM response rate was observed between the lubiprostone and placebo groups (18.5% vs 14.4%; P = .2245). Both the 12-µg BID and 24-µg BID doses of lubiprostone were well tolerated in the double-blind and extension phases, with a safety profile consistent with that seen in adult studies. CONCLUSIONS: Lubiprostone did not demonstrate statistically significant effectiveness over placebo in children and adolescents with PFC but did demonstrate a safety profile similar to that in adults. (ClinicalTrials.gov: Number: NCT02042183; Number: NCT02138136).

Real-World Treatment Strategies to Improve Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Idiopathic Constipation and Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Constipation.

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.

Bowel preparation using 2-L split-dose polyethylene glycol regimen plus lubiprostone versus 4-L split-dose polyethylene glycol regimen: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is a standard procedure for evaluating colon diseases and screening for colorectal cancer, and bowel cleanliness prior to colonoscopy is key. The aim of this study was to compare the bowel cleansing efficacy of low-volume (2 L) split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus single-dose (24 µg) lubiprostone (LB) and high-volume (4 L) split-dose PEG. METHODS: Patients scheduled to undergo outpatient colonoscopy between December 2019 and June 2021 at Rajavithi Hospital were enrolled and randomized into two groups: 2 L PEG + LB or 4 L PEG. Colon cleanliness was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by reviewing images of the colon after completion of colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes comprised cecal intubation rate, procedure time, withdrawal time, polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, patient satisfaction, compliance (based on complete ingestion of bowel preparation regimen), willingness to repeat the preparation regimen, and associated adverse events. RESULTS: One hundred and forty patients were included, with 70 in each group. The mean total and segment-specific BBPS scores were not significantly different between groups. However, the rate of adequate bowel preparation was significantly higher in the 2 L PEG + LB group than the 4 L PEG group (100% [95% CI 94.6-100] versus 88.4% [95% CI 78.4-94.9], p = 0.004) in the per-protocol analysis. Colonic polyps were the most common finding. The polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, and all secondary outcomes were statistically similar in the two groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of 2 L split-dose PEG plus LB improves bowel cleanliness (based on BBPS scores) to a comparable degree to the standard 4 L split-dose PEG, without additional adverse events and with a lower PEG volume.

Development and validation of a highly sensitive and selective LC-MS/MS method for the determination of 15-hydroxylubiprostone in human plasma: application to a pharmacokinetic study in healthy Chinese volunteers.

Lubiprostone, a derivative of prostaglandin E1, is the first chemical-type constipation treatment approved by FDA. Lubiprostone has low systemic exposure after oral administration. Therefore, it is recommended that 15-hydroxylubiprostone, which is a dominant active metabolite of lubiprostone, be used as the pharmacokinetic evaluation indicator. Due to the microdosage of the lubiprostone capsules, it is difficult to develop a highly sensitive bioanalytical method for 15-hydroxylubiprostone.In this study, a highly sensitive and selective liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method has been established and fully validated for the quantification of 15-hydroxylubiprostone in human plasma, and the validated bioanalytical method has been applied to a pharmacokinetic study of lubiprostone capsules successfully.The pharmacokinetics of 15-hydroxylubiprostone were observed after fed administration in healthy Chinese volunteers. The Cmax and AUC0-t were 75.8 ± 57.6 pg/mL and 222 ± 68.0 pg·h/mL for 15-hydroxylubiprostone.This study investigated the pharmacokinetic properties of 15-hydroxylubiprostone under fed conditions in healthy Chinese volunteers and would provide clinical guidance for the application and further development of lubiprostone capsules.

Effects of Lubiprostone, an Intestinal Secretagogue, on Electrolyte Homeostasis in Chronic Idiopathic and Opioid-induced Constipation.

GOALS: To assess short-term and long-term effects of lubiprostone, a type-2 chloride channel activator, on electrolyte homeostasis. BACKGROUND: Conventional laxatives are associated with electrolyte imbalances. Lubiprostone is a type-2 chloride channel activator approved for treating chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC), opioid-induced constipation (OIC), and constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome in women. It induces intestinal fluid secretion, possibly affecting water and electrolyte homeostasis. We investigated short-term and long-term effects of lubiprostone on electrolyte, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and creatinine levels using pooled data from CIC and OIC patients. STUDY: Data were pooled from 10 CIC and OIC studies-6 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies and 4 open-label, long-term studies. Total duration of lubiprostone exposure was from 3 weeks (short-term: CIC, 3 to 4 wk; OIC, placebo-controlled, 12 wk) to 48 weeks (long-term: CIC, 24 to 48 wk; OIC, 48 wk). Sodium, chloride, potassium, magnesium, BUN, and creatinine levels were examined at baseline and final assessment. RESULTS: Overall, 3209 patients were assessed. In the double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, there were no clinically meaningful differences in levels of electrolytes, BUN, and creatinine between lubiprostone and placebo groups, and in changes from baseline levels with long-term use of lubiprostone. Analyses of shifts in laboratory values (low/normal/high) at baseline and final assessment showed minimal effects on electrolytes, BUN, and creatinine. CONCLUSIONS: Lubiprostone did not cause clinically meaningful electrolyte imbalances or affect markers of renal function in either the short-term or long-term treatment of CIC or OIC.

Evaluation of efficacy and safety of lubiprostone in patients with chronic constipation.

OBJECTIVES: Lubiprostone is an apical type 2 chloride channel activator approved for the treatment of chronic constipation (CC), and nausea is the most common adverse symptom. However, the associated factors with the efficacy and the precise mechanism of nausea remain unclear. The aim of this study is to characterize clinical backgrounds related with the efficacy and the adverse symptoms of lubiprostone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects were patients with CC who were prescribed lubiprostone from April 2017 to October 2019. The efficacy and safety of lubiprostone were retrospectively examined using the electronic medical record. RESULTS: Hundred and fifty-five patients (76 men, and mean age 69) were evaluated. Lubiprostone was effective in 74 patients (47.8%), and the discontinuation due to adverse in 34 patients (21.9%). including nausea, diarrhea and abdominal pain in 16, 12 and 3 patients, respectively. The efficacy was significantly associated with gender, age, body mass index (BMI), diabetes mellitus, hypertension, calcium channel blockers and antipsychotics. In multivariate analysis, the efficacy was significantly associated with men (odds ratio [OR], 3.21; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.42-7.27) and BMI (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.28). The incidence of nausea was higher in patients under 65 years old, and hypertension was the significant protective factor for nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Lubiprostone was effective for men patients with CC, and hypertension seems to be the protective factor for nausea.

Risk Factors for Adverse Events in Patients with Chronic Constipation Following Lubiprostone Administration.

INTRODUCTION: Lubiprostone is an effective treatment of chronic constipation (CC). However, as with other stimulant or osmotic laxatives, adverse events (AEs) can make it difficult to continue treatment. This article investigates AE risk factors associated with lubiprostone. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all 1,338 Japanese patients with CC treated at our hospital from October 2013 to July 2017. All patients were diagnosed with constipation as defined by the Roma III criteria. Enrolled patients received lubiprostone orally (24 or 48 µg daily), after which we investigated the incidence of AEs. The causative factors for diarrhea and nausea, the most common AEs, were examined by the backward logistic regression model. RESULTS: Two hundred eight (15.5%) experienced at least 1 AE. No serious AEs were associated with the study drug. The AEs reported by >1% of patients overall were diarrhea (6.1%) and nausea (4.2%). We performed a multivariate logistic regression using a backward variable selection method to investigate AE risk factors. Factors associated with higher incidence of diarrhea were patient age of 65 years or more (odds ratio: [95% confidence interval]; p value) (2.09: [1.05-4.16]; 0.035). Factors associated with greater likelihood of nausea included female gender (1.99: [1.10-3.61]; 0.023), and the chief complaint was a patient complaining of abdominal pain and fullness (2.07: [1.01-4.22]; 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding AE risk factors can help avoid unnecessary AEs and promote more effective treatment.

Real-World Comparison of Elobixibat and Lubiprostone Treatment in Patients with Chronic Constipation: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Elobixibat is a new laxative, but its efficacy and adverse events (AEs) are insufficiently examined compared with those of other laxatives. Hence, by propensity score (PS) matching, we compared the effects and AEs between elobixibat and lubiprostone. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 1,887 Japanese patients with chronic constipation (CC) treated at our hospital between October 2013 and April 2020. Enrolled patients were divided into three treatment groups, namely, elobixibat (10 mg daily) (E10 group, n = 293), lubiprostone (24 µg daily) (L24 group, n = 772), and lubiprostone (48 µg daily) (L48 group, n = 822), as their first treatment. We then investigated the changes on the weekly average number of spontaneous bowel movements, stool consistency scores (SCSs), and AEs starting from the baseline until the end of the 2-week treatment. To adjust for patients' background, we performed one-to-one nearest neighbor matching without replacement between elobixibat- and lubiprostone-treated patients according to the individual estimated PSs. RESULTS: After treatment, for SCSs, both the L24 and L48 groups significantly improved compared with the E10 group (p < 0.05), but their stools were soft (Bristol Stool Form Scale: 4.8). Notably, the E10 group had less frequent AEs than the L24 group (26 [9.0%] vs. 43 [14.8%], p = 0.03). Particularly, nausea was significantly less in the E10 group than that in the L48 group (2 [0.7%] vs. 7 [2.4%], p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Elobixibat is a beneficial drug for patients with mildly symptomatic CC and is safe to use, given its few AEs.

Safety of Lubiprostone in Pediatric Patients With Functional Constipation: A Nonrandomized, Open-Label Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Pediatric functional constipation (PFC) affects up to 30% of children. Current treatments often do not sustain symptomatic relief. Lubiprostone is a locally acting chloride channel activator that promotes fluid secretion into the small bowel without affecting serum electrolyte concentrations. We assessed the safety/tolerability of oral lubiprostone as treatment for PFC in a 24-week study. METHODS: This phase 3 open-label safety trial conducted from April-November 2016 at 13 US sites included patients (ages 6-17 years) diagnosed with PFC (Rome III criteria). Patients <50 and ≥50 kg received lubiprostone 12 or 24 mcg twice daily, respectively, for 24 weeks. Safety endpoints included incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and changes from baseline in clinical laboratory parameters and vital signs. RESULTS: Overall, 87 patients receiving lubiprostone, 64.3% (36/56) in the 12-mcg group and 54.8% (17/31) in the 24-mcg group, completed the study. Of 12 TEAEs leading to discontinuation, only upper abdominal pain occurred in >1 patient. TEAEs were mostly mild in intensity, with gastrointestinal disorders (diarrhea, vomiting) most frequently reported. No safety concerns were found in vital signs, abbreviated physical examinations, and laboratory tests. Subgroup analyses assessed an impact of age, sex, and race categories on TEAEs and treatment-related adverse events. Mean investigators' assessments of treatment effectiveness (scale of 0-4) for lubiprostone 12- and 24-mcg groups, respectively, were 2.8 and 2.9 at week 12, and 2.7 and 2.2 at week 24. CONCLUSIONS: Lubiprostone was well tolerated in the pediatric population. The incidence of TEAEs was comparable to that observed in previous clinical trials and in adults.

Lubiprostone protects esophageal mucosa from acid injury in porcine esophagus.

Esophageal injury from acid exposure related to gastroesophageal reflux disease is a common problem and a risk factor for development of Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Our previous work highlights the benefits of using porcine esophagus to study human esophageal disease because of the similarities between porcine and human esophagus. In particular, esophageal submucosal glands (ESMGs) are present in human esophagus and proximal porcine esophagus but not in rodent esophagus. Although CFTR is expressed in the ducts of ESMGs, very little is known about CFTR and alternate anion channels, including ClC-2, in the setting of acid-related esophageal injury. After finding evidence of CFTR and ClC-2 in the basal layers of the squamous epithelium, and in the ducts of the ESMGs, we developed an ex vivo porcine model of esophageal acid injury. In this model, esophageal tissue was placed in Ussing chambers to determine the effect of pretreatment with the ClC-2 agonist lubiprostone on tissue damage related to acid exposure. Pretreatment with lubiprostone significantly reduced the level of acid injury and significantly augmented the recovery of the injured tissue (P < 0.05). Evaluation of the interepithelial tight junctions showed well-defined membrane localization of occludin in lubiprostone-treated injured tissues. Pretreatment of tissues with the Na+-K+-2Cl- cotransporter inhibitor bumetanide blocked lubiprostone-induced increases in short-circuit current and inhibited the reparative effect of lubiprostone. Furthermore, inhibition of ClC-2 with ZnCl2 blocked the effects of lubiprostone. We conclude that ClC-2 contributes to esophageal protection from acid exposure, potentially offering a new therapeutic target.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This research is the first to describe the presence of anion channels ClC-2 and CFTR localized to the basal epithelia of porcine esophageal mucosa and the esophageal submucosal glands. In the setting of ex vivo acid exposure, the ClC-2 agonist lubiprostone reduced acid-related injury and enhanced recovery of the epithelial barrier. This work may ultimately provide an alternate mechanism for treating gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Evaluating When and Why Patients Discontinue Chronic Therapy for Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Constipation and Chronic Idiopathic Constipation.

INTRODUCTION: To inform the patient-centered discussion regarding comparative outcomes with irritable bowel syndrome/chronic idiopathic constipation pharmacotherapy, we evaluated reasons and timing of discontinuation of FDA-approved pharmacotherapy for irritable bowel syndrome and chronic idiopathic constipation in a large observational real-world cohort. METHODS: We identified patients initiating lubiprostone or linaclotide within the University of Michigan Electronic Medical Record (2012-2016). Medication start and stop dates were determined in manual chart review including detailed review of all documentation including office notes and telephone encounters. A Cox model was constructed to predict the hazard of discontinuation. RESULTS: On multivariate analysis of 1,612 patients, linaclotide users had a lower risk of discontinuing therapy than lubiprostone users for any reason (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5-0.8). At 3 and 12 months, the overall discontinuation rates were 23% and 43% for lubiprostone compared with 14% and 24% for linaclotide. Over the first year of therapy, more than half of discontinuations due to intolerance occurred in the first 3 months for both drugs. Linaclotide users were more likely to discontinue due to intolerance (HR = 1.6 [95% CI, 1.2-2.3]) but less likely to discontinue due to insufficient efficacy of therapy (HR = 0.5 [95% CI, 0.4-0.8]). IBS diagnosis increased the hazard of discontinuation of lubiprostone relative to linactolide (HR = 1.4, 95% CI, 1.1-1.6). Loss of prescription drug coverage remained a common reason for discontinuation over the first year of therapy. DISCUSSION: Individuals appear more likely to discontinue lubiprostone than linaclotide overall, but more likely to discontinue linaclotide compared with lubiprostone due to intolerance (mostly diarrhea). Most discontinuations due to intolerance occur in the first 3 months. These results may be useful in individualized treatment selection and enhancing patient knowledge regarding long-term outcomes.

Effect of lubiprostone on vinca alkaloid-induced constipation in patients with hematological malignancies: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Patients receiving vinca alkaloids for hematological malignancies frequently experience constipation that is unresponsive to laxatives. Research on treatment of vinca alkaloid-induced constipation is limited. This study aimed to determine whether the chloride channel activator lubiprostone ameliorates vinca alkaloid-induced constipation in patients with hematological malignancies. In this retrospective cohort study, vinca alkaloid-induced constipation (grade ≥ 3 using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) was investigated in patients treated for hematological malignancies between July 2014 and June 2019 who had already been prescribed osmotic laxatives and additionally received either a stimulant laxative or lubiprostone. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the risk factors for persistent constipation after introduction of the second laxative. A propensity score model was used to match 67 patients taking a stimulant laxative and 67 treated with lubiprostone, and the occurrence of intractable constipation was compared between groups. Overall, 203 patients were included, among whom 50 (25%) had constipation. On multivariate analysis, body mass index, opioid use, and addition of lubiprostone were independently associated with constipation. Patients treated with lubiprostone were significantly less likely to experience intractable constipation than did those treated with stimulant laxatives (10% vs. 34%, P = 0.002). Moreover, post-constipation diarrhea was significantly less frequent among patients treated with lubiprostone (42% vs. 63%, P = 0.024). Lubiprostone was more effective than stimulant laxatives at treating vinca alkaloid-induced intractable constipation in patients with hematological malignancies, and its use could enable safe vinca alkaloid chemotherapy.

Medications for constipation in 2020.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic constipation is a common problem that substantially impacts the quality of life of patients and families, healthcare professionals, and resources. The purpose of this review is to discuss the medications that are available for management of chronic constipation, including medications that have been approved by the FDA for adults, other been studied in pediatrics now, and might become available within the upcoming years. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent developments in the evaluation of childhood constipation are providing a better understanding into defecation disorders in children and not only new therapies are becoming available, including medications, but also other therapies, such as biofeedback for treatment of functional defecation disorders, electrical stimulation, and surgeries. The aim of this article is to provide an update on the medications that are available for management of chronic constipation, especially with the development and study of newer medications, such as Linaclotide and Lubiprostone with promising results in both adult and pediatric patients. SUMMARY: This review will help us identify and have a better understanding regarding what medications are available for use and the indications, so that we can better manage patients with chronic constipation. VIDEO ABSTRACT.