An evaluation of the FDA responder endpoint for IBS-C clinical trials: analysis of data from linaclotide Phase 3 clinical trials

Update in diagnosis and management of irritable bowel syndrome

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a functional gastrointestinal disorder characterized by a lack of structural or biochemical abnormalities. The current diagnosis of IBS is based on the Rome IV criteria, and it is recommended to approach IBS patients using a multidimensional clinical profile (MDCP). The pathophysiology of IBS is multifactorial and involves motility disorders, genetic factors, immune responses, visceral hypersensitivity, brain-gut dysregulation, and altered intestinal microbiota. The management of IBS includes both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies. Nonpharmacologic therapy options include physical activity, low fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyol diet, as well as cognitive behavioral therapy. Pharmacologic therapy options include probiotics, antidepressants, antispasmodics, and new agents. In clinical practice, a multidisciplinary strategy, including nonpharmacologic or/and pharmacologic treatment for IBS, is emphasized. Therefore, clinicians should carefully consider the underlying pathophysiology before selecting an appropriate therapeutic option for the treatment of IBS. In other words, individualized treatment plans are necessary for managing IBS.

Focus on Pharmacotherapy for Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Constipation

Irritable bowel syndrome with constipation is a common disorder that significantly impairs quality of life. There are now multiple classes of therapeutics that have been shown via rigorous clinical testing to improve the abdominal and bowel symptoms attributed to irritable bowel syndrome with constipation. These include the secretagogues (lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide, tenapenor) and the prokinetic agent tegaserod. This article highlights the pivotal evidence for these agents and most recent treatment guidance from the major North American gastroenterological societies. When pharmaceuticals are used, a patient-specific approach based on efficacy, safety, tolerability, access, and affordability is recommended.

Abdominal Pain Response to Rifaximin in Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Diarrhea

INTRODUCTION

Abdominal pain is the principal symptom of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). This analysis examined abdominal pain response in adults with IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D) receiving the nonsystemic antibiotic rifaximin.

METHODS

In the Targeted Nonsystemic Antibiotic Rifaximin Gut-Selective Evaluation of Treatment for IBS-D 3 trial, adults with IBS-D received open-label rifaximin 550 mg 3 times daily for 2 weeks, followed by the 4-week post-treatment phase assessing abdominal pain and stool consistency response. Responders were followed for up to 18 additional weeks; patients with recurrence were randomly assigned to receive two 2-week courses of double-blind rifaximin 550 mg 3 times daily or placebo, separated by 10 weeks. Analyses evaluated mean weekly improvements from baseline (e.g., ≥30%, ≥40%, and ≥50%) in abdominal pain during the 4-week post-repeat-treatment phases.

RESULTS

Of the 2,438 evaluable patients, 1,384 (56.8%) had abdominal pain response to open-label rifaximin (≥30% improvement from baseline in the mean weekly abdominal pain score during ≥2 of the first 4 weeks post-treatment). Weekly decrease (improvement) in responders' mean abdominal pain score (scale range, 0-10) from baseline ranged from -2.6 to -3.3 points during the 18-week follow-up. After the first double-blind repeat treatment, a significantly higher percentage of rifaximin-treated patients were abdominal pain responders (53.9% [172/319]) vs placebo (44.4% [134/302], P = 0.02), with similar results after the second repeat treatment (52.9% [155/293] vs 44.7% [123/275], respectively, P = 0.047). A significantly higher percentage of rifaximin-treated patients were weekly abdominal pain responders for ≥50% of the 18-week double-blind repeat treatment phase (47.9% [138/288] vs 35.9% [97/270], P = 0.004).

DISCUSSION

Rifaximin is efficacious in improving abdominal pain in adults with IBS-D.

Randomized Clinical Trial: Crofelemer Treatment in Women With Diarrhea-Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Crofelemer, the active compound purified from latex of Croton lechleri, has been shown to improve HIV and traveler's diarrhea and improve pain in women with irritable bowel syndrome-diarrhea (IBS-D). This trial evaluated the effect of crofelemer on abdominal pain in women with IBS-D.

METHODS

Women with IBS-D were randomized to crofelemer (125 mg) or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall change in percentage of abdominal pain/discomfort-free days. Post hoc analysis for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) monthly responders was performed for stool consistency, abdominal pain, and combined stool consistency and abdominal pain.

RESULTS

A total of 240 women were enrolled. There was no significant difference in overall percentage of pain/discomfort-free day between the groups. In post hoc analysis, FDA abdominal pain monthly responders were significantly more likely during months 1 through 2 (58.3% vs 45.0%, P = 0.030) as well as during the entire 3 months (54.2% vs 42.5%, P = 0.037) in the crofelemer group when compared with placebo. However, there was no significant difference in the percentage of FDA stool consistency monthly responders or combined stool consistency and pain monthly responders between the groups. Crofelemer had a safety profile similar to placebo.

DISCUSSION

Crofelemer did not significantly improve abdominal pain over placebo by the primary endpoint. However, it did based on the FDA abdominal pain monthly responder endpoint. This suggests that crofelemer may have a role in the treatment of abdominal pain associated with IBS-D. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the potential of crofelemer as a visceral analgesic.

Biofeedback for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a prevalent condition that currently lacks highly effective therapies for its management. Biofeedback has been proposed as a therapy that may help individuals learn to exert conscious control over sympatho-vagal balance as an indirect method of symptom management.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of biofeedback-based interventions for IBS in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) Group Specialized Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) from inception to 24 July 2019. We also searched reference lists from published trials, trial registries, device manufacturers, conference proceedings, theses, and dissertations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We judged randomized controlled trials to be eligible for inclusion if they met the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback definition of biofeedback, and if they compared a biofeedback intervention to an active, sham, or no-treatment control for the management of IBS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were IBS global or clinical improvement scores and overall quality of life measures. Secondary outcome measures were adverse events, assessments of stool frequency and consistency, changes in abdominal pain, depression, and anxiety. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. We used GRADE criteria to assess the overall certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight randomized trials with a total of 300 adult participants for our analysis. We did not identify any trials in children. Four trials assessed thermal biofeedback. One trial assessed rectosigmoidal biofeedback. Two trials assessed heart rate variability biofeedback. Two trials assessed electrocutaneous biofeedback. Comparators were: no treatment (symptom monitoring group; three studies), attention control (pseudomeditation; two studies), relaxation control (one study), counseling (two studies), hypnotherapy (one study), standard therapy (one study), and sham biofeedback (one study). We judged all trials to have a high or unclear risk of bias. Global/Clinical improvement The clinical benefit of biofeedback plus standard therapy compared to standard therapy alone was uncertain (RR 4.20, 95% CI 1.40 to 12.58; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The same study also compared biofeedback plus standard therapy to sham biofeedback plus standard therapy. The clinical benefit in the biofeedback group was uncertain (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.80; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The clinical benefit of heart rate biofeedback compared to hypnotherapy was uncertain when measured with the IBS severity scoring system (IBS-SSS) (MD -58.80, 95% CI -109.11 to -8.49; 1 study, 61 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to counseling, the effect of heart rate biofeedback was unclear when measured with a composite symptom reduction score (MD 7.03, 95% CI -51.07 to 65.13; 1 study, 29 participants; low-certainty evidence) and when evaluated for clinical response (50% improvement) (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.45; 1 study, 29 participants; low-certainty evidence). The clinical benefit of thermal biofeedback used in a multi-component psychological intervention (MCPI) compared to no treatment was uncertain when measured with a composite clinical symptom reduction score (MD 30.34, 95% CI 8.47 to 52.21; 3 studies, 101 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and when evaluated as clinical response (50% improvement) (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62; 3 studies, 101 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to attention control, the effects of thermal biofeedback within an MCPI were unclear when measured with a composite clinical symptom reduction score (MD 4.02, 95% CI -21.41 to 29.45; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and when evaluated as clinical response (50% improvement) (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.69, 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life A single trial used overall quality of life as an outcome measure, and reported that both the biofeedback and cognitive therapy groups improved after treatment. The trial did not note any between-group differences, and did not report any outcome data. Adverse events Only one of the eight trials explicitly reported adverse events. This study reported no adverse events in either the biofeedback or cognitive therapy groups (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.12; 29 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently not enough evidence to assess whether biofeedback interventions are effective for controlling symptoms of IBS. Given the positive results reported in small trials to date, biofeedback deserves further study in people with IBS. Future research should include active control groups that use high provider-participant interaction, in an attempt to balance non-specific effects of interventions between groups, and report both commonly used outcome measures (e.g. IBS-SSS) and historical outcome measures (e.g. the composite primary symptom reduction (CPSR) score) to allow for meta-analysis with previous studies. Future studies should be explicit in their reporting of adverse events.

Randomized clinical trial: the effect of probiotic Bacillus coagulans Unique IS2 vs. placebo on the symptoms management of irritable bowel syndrome in adults

The therapeutic effects of B. coagulans Unique IS2 have been well established in children with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but its efficacy in adults remain under reported. Thus, in this study the efficacy of B. coagulans Unique IS2 in the management of IBS symptoms in adults was investigated. Patients (n = 153) fulfilling Rome III criteria were provided placebo capsules for a 2 weeks run-in period. Only patients satisfying compliance criteria (n = 136) were randomized (double blind) to receive either B. coagulans Unique IS2 (2 billion CFU) or placebo capsules daily for 8 weeks. Reduction of abdominal discomfort/pain intensity and increase in complete spontaneous bowel movements were analyzed as primary end points. Other clinical symptoms of IBS and serum cytokines were also evaluated. B. coagulans Unique IS2 showed significant improvement in primary and secondary endpoints, as compared to placebo. Haematology of both the arms remained normal. No significant changes in pro- (IL-6, IL-12, TNF-α, INF- γ) and anti-inflammatory cytokine (IL-10) levels were detected at the end of B. coagulans treatment (8 weeks) as compared to placebo. B. coagulans was well tolerated with no severe adverse events to report. Overall, the results demonstrate that B. coagulans Unique IS2 is efficacious in the management of IBS symptoms in adults (18–60 years).

Long-term results of linaclotide in the treatment of constipation-type irritable bowel syndrome

BACKGROUND

constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (C-IBS) is a prevalent, complex and multifactorial disorder that represents a challenge in terms of diagnosis and therapeutic management.

OBJECTIVE

to evaluate the effectiveness, safety and treatment satisfaction of linaclotide in C-IBS patients.

METHODS

prospective, single-center and observational study conducted in patients diagnosed with C-IBS. The patients were treated with linaclotide (Constella®, Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA), once-daily via an oral capsule of 290-μg, 30 minutes before breakfast. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the number of bowel movements per week. The secondary endpoints included treatment satisfaction and changes from baseline in frequency and severity of symptoms (abdominal pain and bloating). This was assessed via an 11-point visual analog scale (VAS) reported by the patients in a daily register.

RESULTS

thirty female patients were consecutively included. The median follow-up time was 18 months. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) number of weekly bowel movements significantly increased from 0.9 (0.6) at baseline to 4.7 (3.9) at the end of follow-up, p < 0.0001. Abdominal pain significantly decreased from 5.7 (2.3) at baseline to 3.1 (2.8) at the end of the follow-up period, p < 0.0001. Similarly, bloating significantly decreased from 6.8 (1.6) to 2.9 (2.5) at the beginning and end of the treatment period, respectively, p < 0.0001. The mean (SD) degree of satisfaction at the end of the study was 6.7 (3.0).

CONCLUSIONS

long-term linaclotide treatment in patients with C-IBS is effective and safe in the clinical setting.

Diagnosis and treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with predominant constipation in the primary-care setting: focus on linaclotide

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a complex functional gastrointestinal disorder that is exceedingly common in clinical practice. IBS with predominant constipation (IBS-C) is a subtype of IBS that accounts for more than a third of the IBS diagnosed. Diagnosis of IBS requires a careful personalized approach, a comprehensive clinical history, limited but relevant investigations, and continued follow-up. Major IBS societies and guidelines recommend offering a positive diagnosis of IBS based on presenting symptomatology. Abdominal pain that may or may not be relieved by defecation is the cardinal symptom of IBS; distension and bloating are other common symptoms. Careful attention should be paid to alarm symptoms before a diagnosis of IBS is made. Pharmacotherapy with linaclotide is recommended for moderate-severe IBS-C, based on high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials. Diarrhea is the major side effect of linaclotide, and limited cost-effectiveness data currently exist.

New and emerging therapies for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: an update for gastroenterologists

Irritable bowel syndrome is a functional bowel disorder with gastrointestinal symptoms (e.g. abdominal pain, straining, urgency, incomplete evacuation, nausea, and bloating) that occur alongside bowel function alterations (i.e. constipation, diarrhea, or both). Patients with irritable bowel syndrome may also experience comorbid anxiety and depression. Irritable bowel syndrome is common, with a prevalence estimated between 3% and 28%, affecting patient health and quality of life. Patients with moderate or severe irritable bowel syndrome generally seek medical care, whereas those with milder symptoms may choose self-management. Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome receive outpatient care, but irritable bowel syndrome-related hospitalizations do occur. The pathophysiology of irritable bowel syndrome is multifactorial (i.e. genetics, immune components, changes in the gut microbiota, disturbances in physiologic stress response systems, and psychosocial factors). Management of irritable bowel syndrome can include lifestyle changes, dietary interventions, counseling, psychologic medication, and agents that affect gastrointestinal motility. A number of therapies have emerged in recent years with clinical trial data demonstrating efficacy and safety for patients with irritable bowel syndrome, including agents that target gastrointestinal motility (i.e. linaclotide), gastrointestinal opioid receptors (i.e. asimadoline, eluxadoline), and gut microbiota (i.e. rifaximin). Linaclotide has been shown to significantly improve stool frequency and abdominal pain compared with placebo in constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (number needed to treat, 5.1). Asimadoline shows efficacy in patients with moderate-to-severe irritable bowel syndrome-related pain. Rifaximin provided adequate relief of global irritable bowel syndrome symptoms versus placebo for a significantly greater percentage of patients with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (p < 0.001). Management that encompasses all aspects of irritable bowel syndrome (gastrointestinal symptoms) and comorbid psychologic symptoms (e.g. anxiety or depression) is important for improving overall patient health and well-being.

Pharmacological, Pharmacokinetic, and Pharmacogenomic Aspects of Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders

This article reviews medications commonly used for the treatment of patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders. Specifically, we review the animal models that have been validated for the study of drug effects on sensation and motility; the preclinical pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and toxicology usually required for introduction of new drugs; the biomarkers that are validated for studies of sensation and motility endpoints with experimental medications in humans; the pharmacogenomics applied to these medications and their relevance to the FGIDs; and the pharmacology of agents that are applied or have potential for the treatment of FGIDs, including psychopharmacologic drugs.

Effective Constipation Treatment Changes More Than Bowel Frequency: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The marketing of newer agents for treatment of constipation and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) emphasize improvements in abdominal pain. However, it is not clear whether this observation reflects a unique visceral analgesic effect of these agents or is a general feature of effective laxation. We sought to determine the relationship between improvements in bowel frequency and decreases in abdominal pain in clinical trials of patients with constipation or IBS-C.

METHODS

We searched "PubMed" and "Embase" databanks for clinical trials in patients with constipation or IBS-C, targeting publications that provided detailed data on bowel movement frequency and pain intensity before and after an intervention. We abstracted the results and performed meta-analytic and meta-regression analyses.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven trials (16 constipation and 11 IBS) met entry criteria. Baseline weekly bowel movement frequency was low with 2.35 (2.07-2.64) with differences between constipation (2.00 [1.62-2.38]) and IBS-C (2.77 [2.40-3.14]; Q = 8.18; P = 0.002). Studies reported moderate pain levels (2.12 [1.81-2.42]) with comparable baseline levels in constipation (2.02 [1.63-2.42]) and IBS-C (2.35 [2.10-2.60]; Q = 1.92; P = 0.167). Treatments increased bowel frequency by 2.17 [1.88-2.47] and lowered pain ratings by 0.58 [0.49-0.68]. Meta-regression demonstrated a significant correlation between treatment-induced increases in bowel frequency and decreased pain ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that reduction of abdominal pain observed in clinical trials of constipation and IBS-C is associated with laxation, and may not require specific drug mechanisms, thus arguing against a unique advantage of newer agents over traditional laxatives in the treatment of constipation and IBS-C.

Larazotide acetate for persistent symptoms of celiac disease despite a gluten-free diet: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Celiac disease (CeD) is a prevalent autoimmune condition. Recurrent signs and symptoms are common despite treatment with a gluten-free diet (GFD), yet no approved or proven nondietary treatment is available.

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we assessed larazotide acetate 0.5, 1, or 2 mg 3 times daily to relieve ongoing symptoms in 342 adults with CeD who had been on a GFD for 12 months or longer and maintained their current GFD during the study. The study included a 4-week placebo run-in, 12 weeks of treatment, and a 4-week placebo run-out phase. The primary end point was the difference in average on-treatment Celiac Disease Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale score.

RESULTS

The primary end point was met with the 0.5-mg dose of larazotide acetate, with fewer symptoms compared with placebo by modified intention to treat (n = 340) (analysis of covariance, P = .022; mixed model for repeated measures, P = .005). The 0.5-mg dose showed an effect on exploratory end points including a 26% decrease in celiac disease patient-reported outcome symptomatic days (P = .017), a 31% increase in improved symptom days (P = .034), a 50% or more reduction from baseline of the weekly average abdominal pain score for 6 or more of 12 weeks of treatment (P = .022), and a decrease in the nongastrointestinal symptoms of headache and tiredness (P = .010). The 1- and 2-mg doses were no different than placebo for any end point. Safety was comparable with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Larazotide acetate 0.5 mg reduced signs and symptoms in CeD patients on a GFD better than a GFD alone. Although results were mixed, this study was a successful trial of a novel therapeutic agent targeting tight junction regulation in patients with CeD who are symptomatic despite a GFD. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01396213.

Advances in the management of constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: the role of linaclotide

Constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C) is a commonly prevalent and clinically challenging disorder to treat. Until recently, most therapeutic agents had limited ability to address the complexity of symptoms inherent to the syndrome. The development of linaclotide provides a physiologically sound approach to treatment of the multiple symptoms of IBS-C. Clinical trials demonstrate the efficacy of linaclotide, and a platform to better understand the symptomatology of IBS-C. Based on recent clinical evidence, linaclotide should be considered for patients with IBS-C because it improves abdominal pain and bowel symptoms. In phase III trials, linaclotide met the US Food and Drug Administration responder endpoint with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 5.1-7.9, and European Medicines Agency coprimary endpoints at 12 weeks with a NNT of 4.39-7.69, and at 26 weeks with a NNT of 4.93-5.68. It is safe and effective, with diarrhea reported as the most common adverse effect, which leads to discontinuation of the medication in approximately 5% of patients.

Irritable bowel syndrome: a concise review of current treatment concepts

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common gastrointestinal disorders causing patients to seek medical treatment. It is relatively resource intensive and the source of significant morbidity. Recent insights into the pathophysiology and treatment of IBS has given clinicians more options than ever to contend with this disorder. The purpose of our paper is to review older, "classic" treatments for IBS as well as newer agents and "alternative" therapies. We discuss the evidence base of these drugs and provide context to help develop appropriate treatment plans for IBS patients.

Placebo effect in clinical trial design for irritable bowel syndrome

Ongoing efforts to improve clinical trial design in irritable bowel syndrome have been hindered by high placebo response rates and ineffective outcome measures. We assessed established strategies to minimize placebo effect as well as the various approaches to placebo effect which can affect trial design. These include genetic markers such as catechol-O-methyltransferase, opioidergic and dopaminergic neurobiologic theory, pre-cebo effect centered on expectancy theory, and side effect unblinding grounded on conditioning theory. We reviewed endpoints used in the study of IBS over the past decade including adequate relief and subjective global relief, emphasizing their weaknesses in fully evaluating the IBS condition, specifically their motility effects based on functional net value and relative benefit-harm based on dropouts due to adverse events. The focus of this review is to highlight ongoing efforts to improve clinical trial design which can lead to better outcomes in a real-world setting.

Evaluating the functional net value of pharmacologic agents in treating irritable bowel syndrome

BACKGROUND

The recent FDA provisional endpoint incorporates a one-tailed measure of improvement for IBS based on the underlying motility complaint. However, motility exists along a spectrum. Patients may experience diarrhoea resulting from therapy for their constipation-predominant IBS (IBS-C) or constipation during treatment for diarrhoea-predominant IBS (IBS-D), but still meet a unidirectional motility-based FDA endpoint.

AIM

To weigh the reported efficacy of existing therapies based on patient-reported outcomes with negative intestinal side effects in controlled clinical trial data.

METHODS

We analysed the difference between 'attributable risk' of efficacy based on number needed to treat (NNT) in the literature and percentage of adverse events (AE) of opposite intestinal complaints in placebo-controlled trials identified through a literature search of IBS trials. This calculation was coined 'functional net value' (FNV) or net benefit of the given drug.

RESULTS

For treating IBS-C, lubiprostone caused diarrhoea in excess of placebo in 3.9% of patients, leading to a FNV of 3.9 percentage units. Linaclotide caused diarrhoea in 15.3% resulting in negative FNV (-1.0 percentage unit). For IBS-D, alosetron and tricyclic anti-depressants caused constipation among a respective 16.9% and 13.0% resulting in a FNV of -3.6 and -0.5 percentage units. Among all therapies, only rifaximin did not cause the adverse event opposite the underlying motility complaint and the drug only had benefit, not detriment.

CONCLUSIONS

Functional net value (FNV) offers a method of evaluating the net benefit of a drug in IBS. Most IBS treatments have a negative effect on IBS that exceeds the benefits.

Effect of linaclotide in irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C): a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C) are limited. While linaclotide improved IBS-C symptoms in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), results vary among studies and the magnitude of benefit is unclear.

METHODS

Two investigators independently extracted data on study participants, methods and outcomes (i.e., symptoms, quality of life, and adverse events) from eligible articles i.e., RCTs comparing linaclotide with placebo in adult patients with IBS-C with a follow-up of 12 weeks or longer. The grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to rate the quality of evidence.

KEY RESULTS

Of 182 identified citations, three RCTs enrolling 1773 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with placebo, fewer patients on linaclotide failed to achieve responses i.e., FDA endpoint (1604 patients, risk ratio [RR] = 0.80; 95%CI 0.76-0.85), adequate IBS symptom relief (1773 patients, RR = 0.73; 95%CI 0.65-0.82), and clinically meaningful improvement in IBS-QOL (1659 patients, RR = 0.78; 95%CI 0.72-0.86). The incidence of diarrhea leading to discontinuation of treatment was higher for linaclotide (1773 patients, RR = 14.75; 95%CI 4.04-53.81). The quality of evidence was rated as moderate for FDA endpoint and adequate relief response, high for diarrhea, and low for IBS-QOL. Generalizability may be limited by the study population (i.e., predominantly white female patients), lack of data regarding prior therapy, and availability of few RCTs. The number of patients is insufficient to identify rare adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

Linaclotide is moderately effective in improving symptoms of IBS-C with diarrhea being the major side effect. Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of linaclotide for IBS-C.

Responders vs clinical response: a critical analysis of data from linaclotide phase 3 clinical trials in IBS-C

BACKGROUND

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set a rigorous standard for defining patient responders in irritable bowel syndrome-C (IBS-C; i.e., FDA's Responder Endpoint) for regulatory approval. However, this endpoint's utility for health-care practitioners to assess clinical response has not been determined. We analyzed pooled IBS-C linaclotide trial data to evaluate clinically significant responses in linaclotide-treated patients who did not meet the FDA responder definition.

METHODS

Percentages of FDA non-responders reporting improvement in abdominal pain, bowel function and/or global relief measures were determined using pooled data from two linaclotide Phase 3 IBS-C trials.

KEY RESULTS

1602 IBS-C patients enrolled; 34% of linaclotide-treated and 17% of placebo-treated patients met the FDA Responder Endpoint (p < 0.0001). Among FDA non-responders at week 12, 63% of linaclotide-treated patients reported their abdominal pain was at least somewhat relieved, compared with 48% of placebo-treated patients. For stool frequency, 62% of linaclotide-treated patients reported that they were at least somewhat improved at week 12, compared with 46% of placebo-treated patients. For global IBS symptoms, 65% of linaclotide-treated patients reported at least some IBS-symptom relief, 43% reported adequate relief of IBS symptoms, and 57% reported being satisfied with linaclotide treatment, vs placebo rates of 48%, 34%, and 41% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

Most linaclotide-treated IBS-C patients who were FDA non-responders reported some improvement in abdominal pain and stool frequency, and global relief/satisfaction. In addition to the FDA Responder Endpoint, differing response thresholds and symptom-specific change from baseline should be considered by clinicians for a complete understanding of clinical response to linaclotide and other IBS-C therapies.

Linaclotide for constipation-predominant IBS

Irritable bowel syndrome is a chronic relapsing disorder characterised by abdominal pain or discomfort associated with defaecation, abdominal bloating and a change in bowel habit. IBS may be classified by the change in bowel function as 'diarrhoea predominant' (IBS-D), 'constipation predominant' (IBS-C) or mixed, or may be unclassified. Although it is not thought to be associated with the development of serious disease, IBS is a debilitating condition often resulting in reduced quality of life and significant use of healthcare resources. Current drug treatment strategies target the patient's predominant symptoms and typically involve the use of an antispasmodic and either a laxative or antidiarrhoeal agent. Linaclotide (Constella-Almirall) is an oral guanylate cyclase-C receptor agonist licensed for the symptomatic treatment of moderate to severe IBS-C in adults. In this article, we consider the evidence for linaclotide and how its use fits with current management strategies for IBS-C.

FDA and EMA end points: which outcome end points should we use in clinical trials in patients with irritable bowel syndrome?

Trial design and endpoints for the evaluation of drug efficacy in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) underwent major changes over the last two decades. A systematic review in the early 1990s concluded that there were few well-designed and well-executed treatment trials in IBS. Over the next decade, the so-called binary endpoints were used in several clinical trials in IBS in the US, Europe and other parts of the world. In 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a general guidance for the evaluation of symptom benefit in clinical trials based on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, which had a major impact on trial design in IBS. In May 2012, the FDA recommended to use as provisional endpoint the quantification of two major IBS aspects, abdominal pain and disordered defecation, to assess the efficacy of pharmacological treatments in IBS. In the present issue of Neurogastroenterology & Motility, the performance of the FDA Responder Endpoint for clinical trials in irritable bowel syndrome with constipation was evaluated using data from two large Phase III clinical trials of linaclotide. The FDA interim endpoints are clinically relevant as they are also able to capture the smallest patient-reported difference in the domain of Abdominal Pain intensity and Abnormal Defecation with good diagnostic accuracy. The FDA responder definition and the European Medicines Agency responder definitions generate similar response rates, while binary endpoints generate higher responder rates. The implications for optimalization and harmonisation are discussed.