Plecanatide Improves Abdominal Bloating and Bowel Symptoms of Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Constipation.

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.

Abdominal Symptom Improvement During Clinical Trials of Tenapanor in Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Constipation: A Post Hoc Analysis.

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.

Development and Current State of Digital Therapeutics for Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

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.

Optimizing the Management Algorithm for Adults With Functional Constipation Failing a Fiber/Laxative Trial in General Gastroenterology: Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Minimization Analysis.

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.

Perceptions, Definitions, and Therapeutic Interventions for Occasional Constipation: A Rome Working Group Consensus Document.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Naloxegol in Patients with Chronic Non-Cancer Pain Who Experience Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Pooled Analysis of Two Global, Randomized Controlled Studies.

Objective: 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.

Plecanatide Improves Symptoms of Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Constipation: Results of an Integrated Efficacy and Safety Analysis of Two Phase 3 Trials.

Purpose: 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.

Optimizing the Utility of Anorectal Manometry for Diagnosis and Therapy: A Roundtable Review and Recommendations.

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.

Differential Diagnosis of Chronic Diarrhea: An Algorithm to Distinguish Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Diarrhea From Other Organic Gastrointestinal Diseases, With Special Focus on Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency.

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.

Linaclotide Reduced Response Time for Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Constipation Symptoms: Analysis of 4 Randomized Controlled Trials.

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.

CABOSEQ: The Effectiveness of Cabozantinib in Patients With Treatment Refractory Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC).

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.

Rare, Overlooked, or Underappreciated Causes of Recurrent Abdominal Pain: A Primer for Gastroenterologists.

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.

Evidence-based treatment recommendations for OTC management of chronic constipation.

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.

Effective Communication Strategies and Tools for Improving Treatment Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Idiopathic Constipation and Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Constipation.

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.

Mechanisms of Action of Current Pharmacologic Options for the Treatment of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation and Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Constipation.

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.

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.