Ischemic colitis and complications of constipation associated with the use of alosetron under a risk management plan: clinical characteristics, outcomes, and incidences.

OBJECTIVES: Alosetron is a potent, selective 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist prescribed for women with severe diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D) under a risk management plan (RMP). The RMP was implemented following cases of ischemic colitis (IC) and complications of constipation (CoC) associated with the use of alosetron. The objectives of this study were to characterize IC and CoC clinical features, outcomes, and incidence rates in the new restricted patient population to evaluate the effectiveness of the RMP in the prevention of serious outcomes. METHODS: Safety data from adverse event reporting from November 2002 through June 2008 were reviewed for probable and possible IC and CoC using the US Food and Drug Administration/sponsor-defined criteria and definitions. Evidence for IC included medical documentation, colonoscopy, and sigmoidoscopy+/-biopsy. Evidence for CoC included medical history and confirmation from health-care professionals. RESULTS: Within the inclusion dates, 29,072 patients received 203,939 alosetron prescriptions. Although the absolute numbers of IC and CoC cases have declined, the incidence rates for IC and CoC (0.95 and 0.36 cases per 1,000 patient-years, respectively) were similar to rates during the postmarketing cycle before alosetron withdrawal. In patients with severe IBS-D receiving alosetron (n=998) or placebo (n=411) in clinical trials since reintroduction, incidence rates for IC were 4 and 2 cases per 1,000 patients, respectively. Rates for CoC were 2 and 0 cases per 1,000 patients in the alosetron and placebo groups, respectively. No mesenteric ischemia, surgeries, transfusions, or deaths occurred in patients with IC and no cases of CoC were associated with toxic megacolon, perforation, surgeries, transfusions, or deaths. IC and CoC cases were typically of short duration and all improved on prompt withdrawal of alosetron. CONCLUSIONS: Serious outcomes associated with IC and CoC appear to be mitigated since introduction of alosetron under the RMP.

Ranitidine (Zantac) syrup versus Ranitidine effervescent tablets (Zantac) EFFERdose) in children: a single-center taste preference study.

BACKGROUND: The histamine H(2) receptor antagonist ranitidine is US FDA-approved for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease and healing of erosive esophagitis in children >or=1 month of age. A low-dose strength of ranitidine is now available in a citrus-flavored 25 mg effervescent tablet (dissolved in 5 mL of water); this formulation was developed to facilitate use in infants and smaller children. Ranitidine syrup is available in a peppermint-flavored 15 mg/mL formulation. OBJECTIVE: To compare taste preferences for ranitidine (Zantac) syrup and ranitidine effervescent tablets dissolved in water (Zantac EFFERdose) in healthy children aged 4-8 years and their adult caregivers. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized, single-blind, crossover, taste test trial was conducted in 102 children and 102 parents/legal guardians. All subjects received a single 45 mg dose of each formulation. After tasting both preparations children were asked: "Now that you have tasted both medicines, which one of these medicines do you think tastes better?" Adults were asked four questions to assess whether they would administer the medication to the children. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent (72/102) of the children preferred the taste of the ranitidine effervescent tablets compared with 29% (30/102) who preferred the syrup (p < 0.001). The majority of adults (71%) responded that they would prefer to administer the effervescent formulation based on taste. Adverse events consistent with product labeling were mild and were reported in four children and three adults: headache (n = 3), drowsiness (n = 1), abdominal pain/cramps (n = 2), and bloating/gas (n = 1). CONCLUSION: The taste of the ranitidine effervescent formulation dissolved in water is preferred over the ranitidine syrup. Better taste acceptance may facilitate ease of administration and compliance in pediatric patients.

The effects of a short course of antibiotics on alvimopan and metabolite pharmacokinetics.

Alvimopan is a novel, oral, peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor (PAM-OR) antagonist that blocks the effects of opioids on the gastrointestinal tract, without blocking opioid-induced analgesic effects. It is metabolized by gut microflora to an active amide-hydrolysis metabolite, which is equipotent to alvimopan. The objective of this study was to characterize the pharmacokinetics of alvimopan and metabolite before, during, and after administration of a short course of antibiotics in healthy adult participants. Simulations were conducted to determine the feasibility for this study. An open-label, sequential drug interaction study was conducted in 45 participants who received twice-daily dosing of alvimopan with and without ciprofloxacin. Metabolite concentrations were reduced by 99.2% (90% confidence interval: 98.8-99.5) in the presence of ciprofloxacin. The interaction occurred rapidly, and recovery was slow. The interaction may be of relevance for patients with relatively high metabolite plasma concentrations prior to antibiotic administration but of little relevance for patients with little or no plasma metabolite exposure initially. Administration of ciprofloxacin decreased alvimopan C(max) by 24%, which is of no clinical relevance. There was no effect of ciprofloxacin on alvimopan trough concentrations or AUC. Alvimopan was well tolerated.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to assess efficacy and safety of 0.5 mg and 1 mg alosetron in women with severe diarrhea-predominant IBS.

OBJECTIVE: Alosetron is indicated for women with chronic, severe diarrhea-predominant IBS (d-IBS) who have not responded adequately to conventional therapy. Constipation is the most common adverse event with alosetron treatment. Multiple dosing regimens were assessed in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (S3B30040) to determine efficacy, tolerability, and evaluate constipation rate. METHODS: 705 women with severe d-IBS were randomized to placebo, alosetron 0.5 mg once daily, 1 mg once daily, or 1 mg twice daily for 12 wk. The primary end point was the proportion of week 12 responders (patients with moderate or substantial improvement in IBS symptoms) on the 7-point Likert Global Improvement Scale (GIS). Secondary end points were average rate of adequate relief of IBS pain and discomfort, and bowel symptom improvements. RESULTS: The proportion of GIS responders at week 12 (primary time point) was significantly greater in all alosetron groups compared with placebo (54/176 [30.7%], 90/177 [50.8%], 84/175 [48%], and 76/177 [42.9%] for placebo, 0.5, 1 mg once daily, and 1 mg twice daily alosetron groups, respectively; P< or = 0.02). Results were similar for the average adequate relief rate (treatment effects > or =12%, P< or = 0.038). Bowel symptoms were improved in all alosetron groups. Constipation was the most common adverse event (9%, 16%, and 19% patients in the 0.5 mg, 1 mg once daily, and 1 mg twice daily groups, respectively). One event of intestinal obstruction and one of ischemic colitis occurred in the 0.5 mg group, and one event of fecal impaction occurred in the 1 mg twice-daily group. All were self-limited and resolved without sequelae. CONCLUSION: Alosetron 0.5 mg and 1 mg once daily as well as 1 mg twice daily are effective in providing global improvement in IBS symptoms, adequate relief of IBS pain and discomfort, and improvement in bowel symptoms in women with severe d-IBS. Lower dosing regimens resulted in a decreased constipation rate.

Irritable bowel syndrome: toward an understanding of severity.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic disorder with symptoms that range in severity from mild and intermittent to severe and continuous. Although severity is a guiding factor in clinical decision making related to diagnosis and treatment, current guidelines related to IBS do not address the issue of severity. Recent data suggest that severity as a multidimensional concept, not fully explained by intensity of symptoms, has important clinical implications including health care utilization and health-related quality of life. Components of IBS severity include symptom intensity, time of assessment, whether the patient or physician makes the severity determination, the type of scale used to measure severity, and the degree of disability or impairment. Currently no consensus definition of IBS severity exists, although 2 validated scales of IBS severity have recently been published. Review of the literature suggests that the prevalence of severe or very severe IBS is higher than previously estimated with a range from 3%-69%. Individual IBS symptoms are important but are not sufficient to explain severity. Rather, severity has multiple components including health-related quality of life, psychosocial factors, health care utilization behaviors, and burden of illness. However, studies have not been adequately designed to determine the relative values of these factors in IBS severity.

A dose-ranging, phase II study of the efficacy and safety of alosetron in men with diarrhea-predominant IBS.

BACKGROUND: A randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled dose-ranging study was conducted to assess the efficacy of alosetron in men with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). METHODS: Six hundred and sixty-two men were randomized to treatment with alosetron 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0 mg, or placebo twice daily for 12 wk, followed by a 4-wk posttreatment period. Adequate relief of IBS pain and discomfort during week 5-12 of the treatment phase was the primary endpoint; secondary endpoints included bowel urgency, stool frequency, and consistency, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and abdominal pain or discomfort. RESULTS: Subjects ranked urgency and abdominal pain as their most bothersome IBS symptoms. The average rate of adequate relief during week 5-12 was significantly higher in the alosetron 1.0 mg twice-daily group compared to placebo (53%vs 40%, p= 0.04), and all doses of alosetron significantly reduced stool consistency scores (p < 0.001) indicating firmer stools. No significant effects of alosetron were seen with regard to urgency, number of bowel movements, bloating, and incomplete evacuation. Constipation was the most common adverse event and occurred in a dose-related manner among subjects receiving alosetron, 9% (0.5 mg twice daily), 15% (1.0 mg twice daily), 11% (2.0 mg twice daily), and 21% (4.0 mg twice daily). No serious adverse events of constipation were reported. One subject in the 0.5 mg twice-daily group had an episode of rectal bleeding suggestive of a possible diagnosis of ischemic colitis. CONCLUSIONS: Alosetron 1 mg twice daily provided adequate relief of IBS pain and discomfort, and improved stool consistency in men with diarrhea-predominant IBS.

Validation of irritable bowel syndrome Global Improvement Scale: an integrated symptom end point for assessing treatment efficacy.

The Global Improvement Scale (GIS) assesses multiple irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) symptoms using a patient-defined 7-point Likert scale ranging from symptoms substantially worse to substantially improved. To evaluate the scale as an efficacy end point, data were collected from two 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of female nonconstipated IBS patients. GIS responders were defined as having substantial or moderate improvement in IBS symptoms. GIS responders had more days with satisfactory control of urgency, firmer stools, fewer stools per day, and fewer days with incomplete evacuation compared to nonresponders. Substantially more GIS responders (90% and 89% in studies 1 and 2, respectively) were satisfied or very satisfied with their treatment overall compared to nonresponders (13% and 11%) (r = 0.8 in both studies). GIS responders had greater satisfaction with medication relief of pain and discomfort and the time needed to return to usual activities. Favorable correlations between GIS and work and nonwork productivity losses were observed. Correlation of the GIS measure with IBS clinical end points establishes the validity of the GIS for measuring improvement in IBS symptoms. The GIS may be useful in assessing the efficacy of IBS interventions in future clinical trials.

Women with irritable bowel syndrome: differences in patients' and physicians' perceptions.

The effective management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is enhanced by a therapeutic relationship between healthcare providers and the patient. This survey focused on addressing the symptoms and impact of IBS in women, as well as physician perceptions regarding IBS. A national survey was undertaken to 1) describe the attitudes, knowledge, treatment strategies, and compliance of women with IBS; 2) compare women with IBS to those without IBS on general health and activity limitations; 3) compare women with IBS to physicians regarding their relative perceptions about the disorder; and 4) determine whether physician gender influenced patient satisfaction.

Effect of alosetron on bowel urgency and global symptoms in women with severe, diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: analysis of two controlled trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of alosetron on bowel urgency and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) global improvement in diarrhea-predominant IBS (D-IBS). METHODS: Women with a lack of satisfactory bowel urgency control at least 50% of the time during screening were randomized to receive alosetron 1 mg (n = 246) or placebo (n = 246) twice daily. The primary end point was the percentage of days with satisfactory control of bowel urgency. The response rate for the IBS global improvement scale (GIS) was a secondary end point. GIS responders were patients who recorded either moderate or substantial improvement in IBS symptoms relative to the way they felt before entering the study. Other end points included improvement in stool frequency, stool consistency, and percentage of days with incomplete evacuation. Further analyses were performed on a subset of patients who had at least 10 of 14 days during screening (>/=71% of days) with a lack of satisfactory control of bowel urgency. RESULTS: Patients had severe chronic IBS symptoms, and 89% of patients had D-IBS. Alosetron resulted in a greater percentage of days with satisfactory control of urgency compared with placebo (69% vs. 56%, respectively, P < 0.001). Greater percentages of alosetron-treated patients were GIS responders at 4, 8, and 12 weeks compared with placebo (59% vs. 41%, 63% vs. 41%, and 68% vs. 46%, respectively, P < 0.001). Patients with more frequent urgency had similar results. Constipation occurred in 28% and 9% of subjects in the alosetron- and placebo-treated groups, respectively. No cases of ischemic colitis were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Alosetron effectively manages bowel urgency and improves global symptoms in women with severe chronic D-IBS.

Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of oral contraceptives co-administered with alosetron (Lotronex).

The 5-HT3 receptor antagonist alosetron (Lotronex) is indicated for use in women with severe, chronic, diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) who have failed conventional therapy. Oral contraceptives (OCs) and alosetron are potential co-medications in women of childbearing age. This study assessed the effect of alosetron co-administration on pharmacodynamic markers of contraceptive efficacy, on the pharmacokinetics of estrogen and progesterone OC components, and on the activity of biochemical markers for the risk of thrombosis. This was an open label, nonrandomized two-way crossover study in 18 healthy women stabilized for 3 months on a low-dose OC containing ethinyl estradiol (EE) and levonorgestrel (LN). Alosetron had no effect on serum concentrations of luteinizing hormone (LH) or follicle-stimulating hormone. Ovarian activity grades (assessing follicle size, progesterone, and 17beta-estradiol concentrations) were similar during OC use with and without alosetron. Steady-state (Day 21) AUC24, Cmax, and tmax of both LN and EE were similar during coadministration of alosetron with an OC. Concentrations and activity of biochemical markers of thrombosis risk were not different in the presence of alosetron. These results indicate that alosetron does not alter the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamic markers of efficacy for a low-dose combination OC. The results also suggest that thromboembolic risk is not increased when alosetron is co-administered with an OC.

Long-term safety and efficacy of alosetron in women with severe diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To assess long-term safety and efficacy of alosetron in women with severe, chronic diarrhea-predominant IBS and in a subset having more frequent urgency (i.e., bowel urgency at least 10 of 14 days during screening). METHODS: Randomized patients received either alosetron 1 mg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 363) twice daily during a 48-wk, double-blind study. The primary endpoint was the 48-wk average rate of adequate relief of IBS pain and discomfort. Secondary endpoints included 48-wk average satisfactory control rates of urgency, stool frequency, stool consistency, and bloating. Other efficacy endpoints were average monthly adequate relief and urgency control rates and impact of provided rescue medication. RESULTS: Alosetron-treated patients had significantly greater 48-wk average adequate relief (p= 0.01) and urgency control (p < 0.001) rates, regardless of rescue medication use, compared with placebo. Results in subjects with more frequent urgency were more robust than those in the overall population (p= 0.005). In weeks without rescue medication use, satisfactory control rates for stool frequency and stool consistency were significantly greater in alosetron-treated patients than placebo. Alosetron-treated patients had significantly greater adequate relief than placebo-treated patients (p < 0.05) in 9 of 12 months and significantly greater urgency control (p < 0.001) in all months. Adequate relief and urgency control were maintained throughout the treatment. Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between treatment groups, except for constipation. Neither ischemic colitis nor serious events related to bowel motor dysfunction was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term use of alosetron is effective and well-tolerated in women with chronic, diarrhea-predominant IBS, including those with more frequent urgency.