-
The American Journal of Gastroenterology Jun 2021Constipation is commonly treated with over-the-counter (OTC) products whose efficacy and safety remain unclear. We performed a systematic review of OTC therapies for...
INTRODUCTION
Constipation is commonly treated with over-the-counter (OTC) products whose efficacy and safety remain unclear. We performed a systematic review of OTC therapies for chronic constipation and provide evidence-based recommendations.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and Embase for randomized controlled trials of ≥4-week duration that evaluated OTC preparations between 2004 and 2020. Studies were scored using the US Preventive Services Task Force criteria (0-5 scale) including randomization, blinding, and withdrawals. The strengths of evidence were adjudicated within each therapeutic category, and recommendations were graded (A, B, C, D, and I) based on the level of evidence (level I, good; II, fair; or III, poor).
RESULTS
Of 1,297 studies identified, 41 met the inclusion criteria. There was good evidence (grade A recommendation) for the use of the osmotic laxative polyethylene glycol (PEG) and the stimulant senna; moderate evidence (grade B) for psyllium, SupraFiber, magnesium salts, stimulants (bisacodyl and sodium picosulfate), fruit-based laxatives (kiwi, mango, prunes, and ficus), and yogurt with galacto-oligosaccharide/prunes/linseed oil; and insufficient evidence (grade I) for polydextrose, inulin, and fructo-oligosaccharide. Diarrhea, nausea, bloating, and abdominal pain were common adverse events, but no serious adverse events were reported.
DISCUSSION
The spectrum of OTC products has increased and quality of evidence has improved, but methodological issues including variability in study design, primary outcome measures, trial duration, and small sample sizes remain. We found good evidence to recommend polyethylene glycol or senna as first-line laxatives and moderate evidence supporting fiber supplements, fruits, stimulant laxatives, and magnesium-based products. For others, further validation with more rigorously designed studies is warranted.
Topics: Bisacodyl; Cathartics; Chronic Disease; Citrates; Constipation; Defecation; Fruit; Gastrointestinal Agents; Glucans; Humans; Inulin; Laxatives; Magnesium; Nonprescription Drugs; Oligosaccharides; Organometallic Compounds; Picolines; Polyethylene Glycols; Psyllium; Senna Extract; Yogurt
PubMed: 33767108
DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001222 -
Efficacy of drugs in chronic idiopathic constipation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.The Lancet. Gastroenterology &... Nov 2019There are several drugs available for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation, but their relative efficacy is unclear because there have been no head-to-head... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There are several drugs available for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation, but their relative efficacy is unclear because there have been no head-to-head randomised controlled trials. We did a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of these therapies in patients with chronic idiopathic constipation.
METHODS
We searched Medline, Embase, Embase Classic, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials published from inception to week 3 June, 2019, to identify randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of drugs (osmotic or stimulant laxatives, elobixibat, linaclotide, lubiprostone, mizagliflozin, naronapride, plecanatide, prucalopride, tegaserod, tenapanor, or velusetrag) in adults with chronic idiopathic constipation. Participants had to be treated for a minimum of 4 weeks, and we extracted data for all endpoints preferentially at 4 weeks, 12 weeks, or both. Trials included in the analysis reported a dichotomous assessment of overall response to therapy (response or no response to therapy). We pooled the data using a random effects model, and reported efficacy and safety of all treatments as a pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs to summarise the effect of each comparison tested. To rank treatments, we used P-scores, which measure the extent of certainty that a treatment is better than another treatment, averaged over all competing treatments.
FINDINGS
We identified 33 eligible randomised controlled trials of drugs, comprising 17 214 patients. Based on an endpoint of failure to achieve three or more complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBMs) per week, the stimulant diphenyl methane laxatives bisacodyl and sodium picosulfate, at a dose of 10 mg once daily, were ranked first at 4 weeks (RR 0·55, 95% CI 0·48-0·63, P-score 0·99), and prucalopride 2 mg once daily ranked first at 12 weeks (0·82, 0·78-0·86, P-score 0·96). When response to therapy was defined as falilure to achieve an increase of one or more CSBM per week from baseline, diphenyl methane laxatives at a dose of 10 mg once daily ranked first at 4 weeks (0·44, 0·37-0·54, P-score 0·99), with prucalopride 4 mg once daily ranked first at 12 weeks (0·74, 0·66-0·83, P-score 0·79), although linaclotide 290 μg once daily and prucalopride 2 mg once daily had similar efficacy (P-scores of 0·76 and 0·71, respectively). Bisacodyl ranked last in terms of safety for total number of adverse events and abdominal pain (P-score 0·08).
INTERPRETATION
Almost all drugs studied were superior to placebo, according to either failure to achieve three or more CSBMs per week or or failure to achieve an increase of one or more CSBM per week over baseline. Although diphenyl methane laxatives ranked first at 4 weeks, patients with milder symptoms might have been included in these trials. Prucalopride ranked first at 12 weeks, and many of the included trials recruited patients who previously did not respond to laxatives, suggesting that this drug is likely to be the most efficacious for patients with chronic idiopathic constipation. However, because treatment duration in most trials was 4-12 weeks, the long-term relative efficacy of these drugs is unknown.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Constipation; Humans; Laxatives; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31474542
DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30246-8 -
Journal of the American Association of... Sep 2022Chronic constipation is a common gastrointestinal condition, and most individuals self-treat with multiple over-the-counter (OTC) laxatives prior to consulting a health...
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.
Topics: Constipation; Dietary Fiber; Humans; Laxatives; Nonprescription Drugs; Polyethylene Glycols; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35943487
DOI: 10.1097/JXX.0000000000000760 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Apr 2024Cancer-related pain often requires opioid treatment with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) as its most frequent gastrointestinal side-effect. Both for prevention and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cancer-related pain often requires opioid treatment with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) as its most frequent gastrointestinal side-effect. Both for prevention and treatment of OIC osmotic (e.g. polyethylene glycol) and stimulant (e.g. bisacodyl) laxatives are widely used. Newer drugs such as the peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) and naloxone in a fixed combination with oxycodone have become available for the management of OIC. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to give an overview of the scientific evidence on pharmacological strategies for the prevention and treatment of OIC in cancer patients.
METHODS
A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library was completed from inception up to 22 October 2022. Randomized and non-randomized studies were systematically selected. Bowel function and adverse drug events were assessed.
RESULTS
Twenty trials (prevention: five RCTs and three cohort studies; treatment: ten RCTs and two comparative cohort studies) were included in the review. Regarding the prevention of OIC, three RCTs compared laxatives with other laxatives, finding no clear differences in effectivity of the laxatives used. One cohort study showed a significant benefit of magnesium oxide compared with no laxative. One RCT found a significant benefit for the PAMORA naldemedine compared with magnesium oxide. Preventive use of oxycodone/naloxone did not show a significant difference in two out of three other studies compared to oxycodone or fentanyl. A meta-analysis was not possible. Regarding the treatment of OIC, two RCTs compared laxatives, of which one RCT found that polyethylene glycol was significantly more effective than sennosides. Seven studies compared an opioid antagonist (naloxone, methylnaltrexone or naldemedine) with placebo and three studies compared different dosages of opioid antagonists. These studies with opioid antagonists were used for the meta-analysis. Oxycodone/naloxone showed a significant improvement in Bowel Function Index compared to oxycodone with laxatives (MD -13.68; 95 % CI -18.38 to -8.98; I = 58 %). Adverse drug event rates were similar amongst both groups, except for nausea in favour of oxycodone/naloxone (RR 0.51; 95 % CI 0.31-0.83; I = 0 %). Naldemedine (NAL) and methylnaltrexone (MNTX) demonstrated significantly higher response rates compared to placebo (NAL: RR 2.07, 95 % CI 1.64-2.61, I = 0 %; MNTX: RR 3.83, 95 % CI 2.81-5.22, I = 0 %). With regard to adverse events, abdominal pain was more present in treatment with methylnaltrexone and diarrhea was significantly more present in treatment with naldemedine. Different dosages of methylnaltrexone were not significantly different with regard to both efficacy and adverse drug event rates.
CONCLUSIONS
Magnesium oxide and naldemedine are most likely effective for prevention of OIC in cancer patients. Naloxone in a fixed combination with oxycodone, naldemedine and methylnaltrexone effectively treat OIC in cancer patients with acceptable adverse events. However, their effect has not been compared to standard (osmotic and stimulant) laxatives. More studies comparing standard laxatives with each other and with opioid antagonists are necessary before recommendations for clinical practice can be made.
Topics: Humans; Laxatives; Analgesics, Opioid; Narcotic Antagonists; Constipation; Oxycodone; Opioid-Induced Constipation; Magnesium Oxide; Cohort Studies; Naloxone; Polyethylene Glycols; Neoplasms; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Naltrexone
PubMed: 38452708
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102704 -
World Journal of Clinical Cases Nov 2019Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and functional constipation (FC) are two commonly encountered functional gastrointestinal disorders in clinical practice and are usually...
BACKGROUND
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and functional constipation (FC) are two commonly encountered functional gastrointestinal disorders in clinical practice and are usually managed with Western medicines in cooperation with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) interventions. Although clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed to assist clinicians with their decisions, there are still gaps in management with regard to integrative medicine (IM) recommendations.
AIM
To comprehensively review the currently available CPGs and to provide a reference for addressing the gaps in IBS and FC management.
METHODS
We searched mainstream English and Chinese databases and collected data from January 1990 to January 2019. The search was additionally enriched by manual searches and the use of publicly available resources. Based on the development method, the guidelines were classified into evidence-based (EB) guidelines, consensus-based (CB) guidelines, and consensus-based guidelines with no comprehensive consideration of the EB (CB-EB) guidelines. With regard to the recommendations, the strength of the interventions was uniformly converted to a 4-point grading scale.
RESULTS
Thirty CPGs met the inclusion criteria and were captured as data extraction sources. Most Western medicine (WM) CPGs were developed as EB guidelines. All TCM CPGs and most IM CPGs were identified as CB guidelines. Only the 2011 IBS and IM CPG was a CB-EB set of guidelines. Antispasmodics and peppermint oil for pain, loperamide for diarrhea, and linaclotide for constipation were relatively common in the treatment of IBS. Psyllium bulking agents, polyethylene glycol and lactulose as osmotic laxatives, bisacodyl and sodium picosulfate as stimulant laxatives, lubiprostone and linaclotide as prosecretory agents, and prucalopride were strongly recommended or recommended in FC. TCM interventions were suggested based on pattern differentiation, while the recommendation level was considered to be weak or insufficient.
CONCLUSION
WM CPGs generally provide a comprehensive management algorithm, although there are still some gaps that could be addressed with TCM. Specific high-quality trials are needed to enrich the evidence.
PubMed: 31750331
DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i21.3486 -
Acta Gastro-enterologica Belgica 2019To assess the efficacy adjunction of oral simethicone to polyethylene glycol as bowel preparation agent on cecal intubation rate. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The effect of oral polyethylene glycol combined with simethicone for colonoscopy on cecal intubation rate, tolerability and acceptability : a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy adjunction of oral simethicone to polyethylene glycol as bowel preparation agent on cecal intubation rate.
METHODS
We searched EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane library for randomized controlled trials regarding simeticone plus polyethylene glycol as oral drinking agents before gastroscopy,we used the soft RevMan5.3 to perform statistical analysis and stata12.0 for publication bias.
RESULTS
12 randomized trials that met the inclusion criteria were therefore pooled into a meta-analysis, which included a total of 5,112 patients. There were no significant differences on cecal intubation rate in two groups(RR=1.0,95%CI : 0.99-1.01, P=0.93) with moderate level of evidence;Subgroups analysis of 2LPEG+ Simethicone VS 2LPEG(RR =1.0, 95% CI : 0.98,1.01), 2LPEG+ Simethicone VS 4L PEG (RR=1.00, 95% CI : 0.98,1.02), PEG+ Simethicone with bisacodyl vs PEG (RR =1.00, 95% CI : 0.99,1.02), PEG+Simethicone without bisacodyl vs PEG (RR =1.00, 95% CI : 0.98,1.02) showed no difference on cecal intubation rate.There was aslo no significant difference on cecal intubation time.Abdominal bloating incidence was lower in PEG+Simethicone group than that in PEG group (RR=0.53, 95%CI : 0.31, 0.91, P=0.02). The meta-analysis result also showed a better acceptability in PEG+Simethicone group (RR=1.28, 95% CI : 1.01, 1.49, P=0.001).
CONCLUSION
Adjunction of oral simethicone to polyethylene glycol as bowel preparation agent dose not improve cecal intubation rate on colonoscopy,but with better gastrointestinal tolerability and acceptability.
Topics: Cathartics; Colonoscopy; Humans; Intubation, Intratracheal; Polyethylene Glycols; Simethicone
PubMed: 31566329
DOI: No ID Found