Lessons learned: Chronic idiopathic constipation patient experiences with over-the-counter medications.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a prevalent functional gastrointestinal disorder diagnosed based on patient-reported symptoms and the absence of structural gastrointestinal abnormalities. Individuals with CIC typically institute dietary changes and use stool softeners or over-the-counter (OTC) laxatives, possibly at the direction of a healthcare provider, before prescription medications for CIC are initiated. Although highly prevalent, there is limited information regarding CIC patient experiences with OTC medications. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis used patient-reported data from a questionnaire administered during patient screening for a prospective linaclotide Phase 3b clinical trial in patients with CIC (N = 1482 screened). The questionnaire asked patients to report their experiences with OTC CIC medications over the preceding 6 months. RESULTS: Among patients with screening responses (N = 1423), most were female (85%) and white (66%), with a mean age of 48.9 years. A high proportion of patients had used one or more OTC medications (70% had ≥1 OTC; 19% had ≥3 OTCs), with the majority being bisacodyl (33%) and polyethylene glycol (30%). The most commonly cited reason for stopping an OTC medication was insufficient symptom relief (17-40%). The majority of patients taking OTC medications reported no or little satisfaction with the medication's effect on their constipation (62%) and CIC-specific abdominal symptoms (78%). Many patients had little to no confidence in bowel movement (BM) frequency after taking OTC medications and their confidence in their ability to predict BM timing was also low (49-81% not at all confident). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment effects on individual CIC symptoms, predictability of bowel habits, and satisfaction with treatment are all important factors for healthcare providers and patients to consider when establishing an effective treatment regimen for CIC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01642914.

Safety and tolerability of linaclotide for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation: pooled Phase 3 analysis.

BACKGROUND: Linaclotide is approved for treating irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C; 290 µg QD) and chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC; 145 µg or 72 µg QD). These analyses aimed to assess linaclotide safety in a large, pooled Phase 3 population. METHODS: In six randomized controlled trials (RCTs), patients received linaclotide (72 µg, 145 µg, 290 µg) or placebo daily for 12-26 weeks; in two long-term safety (LTS) studies, patients received open-label linaclotide for ≤78 additional weeks. Laboratory values, vital signs, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 3853 patients received ≥1 dose of linaclotide. The most common TEAE was diarrhea (majority [90.5% in RCTs] mild/moderate). Linaclotide patients experienced 1.1 diarrhea TEAE per patient-year in the RCTs (0.2 in placebo), and 0.3 in the LTS studies. In RCTs, 6.9% linaclotide and 3.0% placebo patients discontinued due to any adverse event (AE); 4.0% linaclotide and 0.3% placebo patients discontinued due to diarrhea. In LTS studies, 9.4% patients discontinued due to any AE, and 3.8% due to diarrhea. Serious AEs (SAEs) were rare and similar across treatment groups; there were no SAEs of diarrhea. CONCLUSION: These pooled analyses of patients treated for ≤104 weeks confirm linaclotide's overall safety.

Analysis of hereditary angioedema attacks requiring a second dose of ecallantide.

BACKGROUND: Effective treatment of acute attacks is critical in managing hereditary angioedema (HAE). Ecallantide, a plasma kallikrein inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of HAE attacks. Occasionally, a second dose is needed when treating attacks of HAE. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the characteristics of HAE attacks requiring a second dose (dose B) of ecallantide. METHODS: Data from all ecallantide clinical trials (EDEMA2, EDEMA4, and DX-88/19) that allowed an open-label dose B were included in this analysis. Patient and attack characteristics potentially predictive of dose B after ecallantide were analyzed by logistic regression. A multivariate model was built using a backward selection process, incorporating variables from the univariate model with P < .20 and removing factors with the highest P value until only significant (P < .05) factors remained. RESULTS: The analysis included 732 ecallantide-treated HAE attacks in 179 patients. Dose B was required in 88 attacks (12.0%), most (80.5%) for incomplete response. By attack location, 31 of 325 abdominal attacks (9.5%), 17 of 158 laryngeal attacks (10.8%), and 40 of 242 peripheral attacks (16.5%) required dose B. On the basis of the univariate analysis, baseline severity (odds ratio = 1.33, P = .15) and peripheral attack (odds ratio = 1.80, P = .01) were identified as potential predictive factors; abdominal attacks had an inverse correlation (odds ratio = 0.64, P = .055). However, the multivariate analysis identified only peripheral attacks as statistically significantly correlated (P < .05) with dose B requirement. CONCLUSION: A single, 30-mg dose of ecallantide was effective for most HAE attacks (88.0%). Patients with peripheral attacks of HAE were more likely to require a second dose of ecallantide after 4 hours. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: not applicable for EDEMA2 (trial was conducted before registration requirements were implemented), NCT00457015 for EDEMA4, and NCT00456508 for DX-88/19.