Optimal dose of ramosetron in female patients with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea: A randomized, placebo-controlled phase II study

Bladder Pain Sensitivity Is a Potential Risk Factor for Irritable Bowel Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Although dysmenorrhea is a highly prevalent risk factor for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), the factors underlying this risk are not fully understood. Prior studies support a hypothesis that repeated distressing menstrual pain promotes cross-organ pelvic sensitization with heightened visceral sensitivity.

AIMS

To further explore cross-organ pelvic sensitization we examined the association of dysmenorrhea, provoked bladder pain, and other putative factors with self-reported IBS-domain pain frequency and new onset after 1-year follow up.

METHODS

We measured visceral pain sensitivity with a noninvasive provoked bladder pain test in a cohort of reproductive-aged women, enriched for those reporting moderate-to-severe menstrual pain intensity but without any prior IBS diagnosis (n = 190). We analyzed the relationship between menstrual pain, provoked bladder pain, pain catastrophizing, anxiety, and depression with primary outcomes: (1) frequency of self-reported IBS-domain pain and (2) new onset of IBS-domain pain after 1-year follow up.

RESULTS

All hypothesized factors correlated with the frequency of IBS-domain pain (p's ≤ 0.038). In a cross-sectional model, only menstrual pain (standardized adjusted odds ratio 2.07), provoked bladder pain (1.49), and anxiety (1.90) were independently associated with IBS-domain pain ≥ 2 days/month (C statistic = 0.79). One year later, provoked bladder pain (3.12) was the only significant predictor of new onset IBS-domain pain (C statistic = 0.87).

CONCLUSION

Increased visceral sensitivity among women with dysmenorrhea could lead to IBS. Because provoked bladder pain predicted subsequent IBS, prospective studies should be performed to see if the early treatment of visceral hypersensitivity mitigates IBS.

Nocebo response intensity and influencing factors in the randomized clinical trials of irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To estimate the magnitude of the nocebo response and explore its influencing factors in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to March 2021. We performed a random effects meta-analysis of the proportion of adverse events (AEs) in placebo-treated patients with IBS who are involved in parallel-designed, randomized, placebo-controlled trials investigating pharmacological interventions and evaluated the effect of trial characteristics on the magnitude of the nocebo response rate.

Results

A total of 6,107 studies were identified from the databases. After evaluation, 53 met the eligibility criteria and were included. The overall pooled nocebo response rate was 32% (95% CI: 26-38%). The most commonly reported AEs were headache (9%), nasopharyngitis (7%), abdominal pain (4%), and nausea (4%). The nocebo response rate was low compared with that in the treatment group applying probiotics, antispasmodics, and Traditional Chinese medicine, but high compared with that in antibiotic treatment group. The nocebo rate in patients using diaries to record AEs was lower than the average, and was higher in patients recording through checkup.

Discussion

Patients with IBS have significant nocebo response intensity in clinical trials. Based on findings in this study, we recommend the researchers pay attention to the common AEs and carefully analyze the relation to the intervention.

Comparing probiotic and drug interventions in irritable bowel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Clinical decisions made by health professionals to recommend either drug or probiotic interventions for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) should be supported by proper knowledge of the efficacy rates of both types of interventions. In this article, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of both probiotic- and drug interventions in IBS. Medline was searched between January 2015 - January 2021. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) recruiting participants > 18 years old with IBS and examining the effect of probiotics or drugs were eligible for inclusion. The data of the primary outcome, i.e. the persistence of IBS symptoms (dichotomous symptom data), were pooled to obtain a relative risk (RR), with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Secondary outcomes, abdominal pain- and bloating scores (continuous data), were pooled using a standardised mean difference with a 95% CI. The search identified 269 citations of which 32 RCTs were eligible. Our meta-analysis indicated that both probiotic and drug interventions are able to improve the persistence of IBS symptoms (RR 0.60 [0.51; 0.92] versus 0.87 [0.81; 0.92], respectively) and abdominal pain scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35 [-0.56; -0.14] versus -0.10 [-0.20; 0.00], respectively). However, determining the overall efficacy of both intervention types is inherently complex and such results should be interpreted with care, due to the large diversity of probiotic- and drug types and doses, which is also complicated by variety in IBS subtypes. Hence, as a first step, more large scale randomised double blind placebo-controlled trials focussing on a specific IBS subtype targeted with specific probiotic strains or specific pharmaceutical modalities should be executed, enabling a more proper comparison between trials.

Inadequate safety reporting in the publications of randomised clinical trials in irritable bowel syndrome: drug versus probiotic interventions

Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) offer a unique opportunity to obtain controlled efficacy and safety data to support clinical decisions. However, most RCT reporting has a stronger focus on efficacy rather than safety. This study aimed to identify the safety profile of both probiotic and drug interventions in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). In connection to this paper, an accompanying paper was published in which a meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of probiotic interventions compared to that of drug interventions in IBS. Together, these two studies provide a first assessment regarding the feasibility to determine a burden to benefit ratio for both probiotic and drug interventions in IBS. RCTs including participants (>18 years old) with IBS and comparing probiotic or drugs interventions with control groups were identified by a systematic search of MEDLINE (January 2015 - Jan 2021). Reported safety profiles in drug studies were completer and more detailed as compared with studies on probiotics. Several inconsistencies in safety reporting were identified between and within drug and probiotic studies, such as: didn't report on safety; only reported adverse reactions (ARs) or adverse events (AEs) with a certain severity; didn't report the total number of AEs; didn't split in the control- or experimental arm; didn't specify AEs; and used different thresholds for 'common' AEs. Hence, it is difficult to compare safety data from drug and probiotic RCTs across and between different studies. On the current approaches to safety reporting, we could not establish an unambiguous safety profile for neither probiotic and drug interventions in IBS. These shortcomings hamper a critical comparison of the burden to benefit ratio for IBS intervention.

Adverse events in trials of licensed drugs for irritable bowel syndrome with constipation or diarrhea: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Nocebo effects occurring in patients receiving placebo frequently impact on adverse events reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the proportion of patients randomized to placebo or active drug experiencing any adverse event in trials of licensed drugs for IBS with constipation (IBS-C) or diarrhea (IBS-D), and to estimate the risk of developing adverse events among patients randomized to placebo.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE CLASSIC and EMBASE, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (through June 2021) to identify RCTs comparing licensed drugs with placebo in adults with IBS-C or IBS-D. We generated Forest plots of pooled adverse event rates in both active drug and placebo arms and pooled risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

KEY RESULTS

There were 21 RCTs of licensed drugs versus placebo in IBS-C (5953 patients placebo) and 17 in IBS-D (3854 patients placebo). Overall, 34.9% and 46.9% of placebo patients in IBS-C and IBS-D trials, respectively, developed at least one adverse event, with a statistically significantly higher risk of any adverse event and withdrawal due to an adverse event with active drug. In IBS-C and IBS-D trials, rates of each individual adverse event were generally higher with active drug. However, in IBS-C trials, only diarrhea or headache was significantly more common with active drug (RD 0.066 (95% CI 0.043-0.088) and RD 0.011 (95% CI 0.002-0.021), respectively), and in IBS-D trials only constipation, nausea, or abdominal pain (RD 0.096 (95% CI 0.054-0.138), 0.014 (95% CI 0.002-0.027), and 0.018 (95% CI 0.002-0.034), respectively).

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

Patients with IBS randomized to placebo have a high risk of reporting adverse events, which might relate to both nocebo and non-nocebo factors. Although patients' expectations and psychosocial factors may be involved, further understanding of the mechanisms are important to control or optimize these effects in RCTs, as well as in clinical practice.

Placebo Response Rates in Trials of Licensed Drugs for Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Constipation or Diarrhea: Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There are several licensed drugs for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) that have proven efficacy in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but placebo response rates are high. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of licensed drugs to estimate magnitude of placebo response rate according to Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended endpoints and to assess how this varies with stringency of the endpoint used to define response.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE CLASSIC and EMBASE, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (through January 2021) to identify RCTs comparing licensed drugs with placebo in adult IBS patients. Studies assessed efficacy according to at least one of composite response, abdominal pain response, or stool response. Data were extracted as intention-to-treat analyses, with dropouts assumed to be treatment failures and pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

There were 17 RCTs of licensed drugs versus placebo in IBS with constipation (4603 patients placebo) and 17 trials in IBS with diarrhea (3908 patients placebo). In IBS with constipation, according to FDA criteria, pooled composite, abdominal pain, and stool response rates with placebo over ≥6 of 12 weeks were 18.9%, 34.6%, and 30.1%, respectively. Evaluating response rates over ≥9 of 12 weeks led to placebo response rates of 4.3% for the composite endpoint, 24.5% for abdominal pain, and 7.7% for stool. In IBS with diarrhea, pooled placebo response rates according to FDA criteria were 16.2% for the composite endpoint, 40.2% for abdominal pain, and 16.2% for stool. Increasing the threshold used to define abdominal pain response from ≥30% improvement to ≥40% or ≥50% led to lower placebo response rates of 34.5% and 23.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

Future RCTs should adhere to current FDA-recommended endpoints for IBS because these lead to lower placebo response rates. However, consideration should be given to further refining some of these to better differentiate between active drug and placebo.

Comparative effectiveness of 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists in irritable bowel syndrome: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

BACKGROUND

There is evidence demonstrating the beneficial effects of 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3) for the treatment of non-constipated irritable bowel syndrome (NC-IBS). We aimed to determine the comparative effectiveness of 5-HT3 antagonists in NC-IBS, as evidenced by the results of a network meta-analysis (NWM) of published relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We searched the PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant RCTs through September 2020 and data from each selected RCT were extracted. A Bayesian NWM was then performed to investigate the efficacy of 5-HT3 antagonists and to explore the effectiveness rank order in treating NC-IBS patients.

RESULTS

Twenty-one eligible RCTs were identified and entered into this NWM. They included a total of 10,421 NC-IBS patients, randomized to alosetron, cilansetron, ondansetron, ramosetron, placebo, and mebeverine. The cumulative ranking probability for each intervention at the end of treatment period, was evaluated by means of surfaces under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values. These results showed that alosetron had the best performance for global symptom improvement (SUCRA 0.82), cilansetron showed the best performance (SUCRA 0.90) for abdominal pain/discomfort improvement, while ondansetron (SUCRA 0.98) was by far the best choice concerning bowel habits/consistency improvement. The control regimens (mebeverine and placebo) represented the least efficacious interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

This NWM showed that 5-HT3 receptor antagonists performed better in comparison to control drugs. Consequently, this class of drugs may play an important role in improving the debilitating symptoms in NC-IBS patients, in particular those with diarrhea.

The placebo response rate in pharmacological trials in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials in irritable bowel syndrome are associated with high placebo response rates. We aimed to identify the magnitude of the placebo response and the contributing factors to this occurrence.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis with a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials between April 1, 1959, and April 30, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials that compared an active pharmacotherapeutic agent with placebo and had a dichotomous outcome of response to therapy (in terms of global improvement or improvement in abdominal pain) in adults (aged ≥18 years) with irritable bowel syndrome. Exclusion criteria were trials reporting on treatment satisfaction as a dichotomous outcome of response to therapy or clinician-reported outcomes and a treatment duration of less than 4 weeks. Our main outcome was identification of the magnitude of the pooled placebo response rate for the following endpoints: global improvement, abdominal pain, and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) endpoints. We extracted information from published reports and pooled proportions through meta-analysis with random effects. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020170908.

FINDINGS

Of the 6863 publications identified, 70 articles describing 73 randomised controlled trials were included in our analysis. The pooled placebo response rate was 27·3% (95% CI 24·3-30·9) using the global improvement endpoint, 34·4% (31·2-37·8) using the abdominal pain endpoint, and 17·9% (15·2-21·0) using the composite FDA endpoint responder definition, all with substantial heterogeneity between the trials. Studies published before 2006, and those done in Europe, with a parallel design, a run-in period of 2 weeks or less, a dose schedule of three times a day or more, or a smaller sample size of the control group were significantly associated with an increased pooled placebo response rate.

INTERPRETATION

More than a quarter of patients with irritable bowel syndrome had a placebo response in terms of global improvement, with multiple associated moderators. We recommend future trials apply a run-in period of at least 2 weeks and dose once or twice a day to minimise the placebo response rate.

FUNDING

None.

Targeted pharmacotherapy of irritable bowel syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a highly prevalent functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorder with negative impact on quality of life and it represents a substantial economic burden on healthcare cost. The medical management of IBS is symptom directed. This review provides an update related to clinical trial data for novel treatment modalities in IBS targeting the gut epithelium secretagogue receptors and channels.

RECENT FINDINGS

The new Rome IV criteria define functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID) as disorders of the gut-brain interaction. Pharmacological treatment modalities for IBS target gastrointestinal receptors and ion channels, peripheral opioid receptor, gut serotonin receptors, and the gut microbiome. New targeted pharmacotherapies have shown efficacy and safety in the treatment of patients with IBS.

SUMMARY

Diagnostic criteria for FGID, including IBS, have been revised in Rome IV and are defined as gut-brain disorders. Newly approved pharmacotherapy options with proven efficacy and acceptable side-effect profiles are available for the symptom-based management of IBS.

Pharmacological Therapies and Their Clinical Targets in Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Diarrhea

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common disorders of the gut-brain axis, which affects approximately 4% of the global population. The Rome IV criteria define IBS as chronic or recurrent abdominal pain associated with altered bowel habits. Patients can be categorized in four subtypes: IBS with predominant constipation (IBS-C), predominant diarrhea (IBS-D), mixed bowel habits (IBS-M), and unclassified (IBS-U). IBS is associated with a lower quality of life, reduced work productivity, and high healthcare costs. When comparing subtypes, patients with IBS-D report lower disease related quality of life. Due to the scope of this review, we have solely focused on patients with IBS-D. Choosing the right pharmacological treatment in these patients remains challenging due to the heterogeneous patient population, patients' expectation of the treatment outcome, unavailability of efficacious drugs, and the multifactorial and incompletely understood underlying pathophysiology. Currently, pharmacological treatment options target individual symptoms, such as abdominal pain, altered bowel habits, and bloating. In this review, we aimed to summarize the current and recent pharmacological treatment options in IBS-D, targeting the predominant gastrointestinal symptoms. Additionally, we proposed a pharmacological treatment algorithm which healthcare professionals could use when treating individual patients with IBS-D.

An update on efficacy and safety considerations for the latest drugs used to treat irritable bowel syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), globally affecting 11.2% of the population and imposing a direct annual cost of $1.7bn-$10bn in the US, is one of the today's major therapeutic challenges. Therefore, there is urgent need to address this issue through reviewing the tolerability and efficacy of available medications.

AREAS COVERED

Over the past decade, related experiments were cited through Clinicaltrials.gov, PubMed, WHO ICTRP, and Cochrane library. Pharmacological parameters of approved medications available in the USFDA, EMA, TGA and PMDA were also stated.

EXPERT OPINION

Anti-spasmodics are used as the first-line treatment in pain-predominant IBS and IBS-D, among which calcium channel blockers and neurokinin-type 2 receptor antagonists seem to replace anti-cholinergic drugs. As second-line treatments, rifaximin is considered to be the best for IBS-D though it has lower efficacy than alosetron and eluxadoline. For IBS-C, linaclotide is the most effective and the safest second-line therapy, following laxatives/fibers, which may be replaced by tenapanor, in the future. When moderate to severe IBS is associated with severe pain or comorbid psychological disorders, gut-brain neuromodulators could also be prescribed. Regarding all this, there is still a paramount need to conduct careful clinical studies on efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of current approved and non-approved treatments.

Efficacy of pharmacological therapies in patients with IBS with diarrhoea or mixed stool pattern: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Over half of patients with IBS have either diarrhoea (IBS-D) or a mixed stool pattern (IBS-M). The relative efficacy of licenced pharmacological therapies is unclear in the absence of head-to-head trials. We conducted a network meta-analysis to resolve this uncertainty.

DESIGN

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Embase Classic, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov through January 2019 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of licenced pharmacological therapies (alosetron, eluxadoline, ramosetron and rifaximin) in adults with IBS-D or IBS-M. Trials included in the analysis reported a dichotomous assessment of overall response to therapy, and data were pooled using a random effects model. Efficacy and safety of all pharmacological therapies were reported as a pooled relative risk with 95% CIs to summarise the effect of each comparison tested. Treatments were ranked according to their p score.

RESULTS

We identified 18 eligible RCTs (seven alosetron, five ramosetron, two rifaximin and four eluxadoline), containing 9844 patients. All were superior to placebo for the treatment of IBS-D or IBS-M at 12 weeks, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended endpoint for trials in IBS. Alosetron 1 mg twice daily was ranked first for efficacy, based on the FDA-recommended composite endpoint of improvement in both abdominal pain and stool consistency, effect on global symptoms of IBS and effect on stool consistency. Ramosetron 2.5µg once daily was ranked first for effect on abdominal pain. Total numbers of adverse events were significantly greater with alosetron 1 mg twice daily and ramosetron 2.5µg once daily, compared with placebo. Rifaximin 550 mg three times daily ranked first for safety. Constipation was significantly more common with all drugs, except rifaximin 550 mg three times daily.

CONCLUSION

In a network meta-analysis of RCTs of pharmacological therapies for IBS-D and IBS-M, we found all drugs to be superior to placebo, but alosetron and ramosetron appeared to be the most effective.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Irritable Bowel Syndrome in Korea, 2017 Revised Edition

In 2011, the Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (KSNM) published clinical practice guidelines on the management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) based on a systematic review of the literature. The KSNM planned to update the clinical practice guidelines to support primary physicians, reduce the socioeconomic burden of IBS, and reflect advances in the pathophysiology and management of IBS. The present revised version of the guidelines is in continuity with the previous version and targets adults diagnosed with, or suspected to have, IBS. A librarian created a literature search query, and a systematic review was conducted to identify candidate guidelines. Feasible documents were verified based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The candidate seed guidelines were fully evaluated by the Guidelines Development Committee using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II quality assessment tool. After selecting 7 seed guidelines, the committee prepared evidence summaries to generate data exaction tables. These summaries comprised the 4 main themes of this version of the guidelines: colonoscopy; a diet low in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols; probiotics; and rifaximin. To adopt the core recommendations of the guidelines, the Delphi technique (ie, a panel of experts on IBS) was used. To enhance dissemination of the clinical practice guidelines, a Korean version will be made available, and a food calendar for patients with IBS is produced.

Fractional calculus in pharmacokinetics

We are witnessing the birth of a new variety of pharmacokinetics where non-integer-order differential equations are employed to study the time course of drugs in the body: this is dubbed "fractional pharmacokinetics". The presence of fractional kinetics has important clinical implications such as the lack of a half-life, observed, for example with the drug amiodarone and the associated irregular accumulation patterns following constant and multiple-dose administration. Building models that accurately reflect this behaviour is essential for the design of less toxic and more effective drug administration protocols and devices. This article introduces the readers to the theory of fractional pharmacokinetics and the research challenges that arise. After a short introduction to the concepts of fractional calculus, and the main applications that have appeared in literature up to date, we address two important aspects. First, numerical methods that allow us to simulate fractional order systems accurately and second, optimal control methodologies that can be used to design dosing regimens to individuals and populations.

Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase IV pilot study of ramosetron to evaluate the co-primary end points in male patients with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea

BACKGROUND

Global assessment allows patients to assess improvement in multiple irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) symptoms. However, it was deemed important to assess "clinically meaningful improvements, focusing on the patient's chief complaint and the severity of major IBS symptoms" in addition to global assessment to show how ramosetron is effective for individual IBS symptoms. This is a pilot study to explore clinical endpoints focusing on the chief complaint of patients with IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D).

METHODS

The same database was used in a previously reported post-marketing phase IV, randomized placebo-controlled pilot trial in male patients with IBS-D. The hypothesis is completely different from that of the other study. Patients with IBS-D diagnosed according to Rome III criteria were given either 5 μg of ramosetron (n = 47) or placebo (n = 51) once daily for 12 weeks after a one-week baseline period. To explore and examine endpoints that allow evaluation of "clinically meaningful improvements focusing on the patient's chief complaint," the chief complaint and its relief by this study drug were assessed in this exploratory study.

RESULTS

Rates of patients with abdominal pain/discomfort, stool form and stool frequency which patients had as a chief complaint before administration were 34.0, 19.1 and 25.5%, respectively, in the ramosetron 5 μg group and 42.0, 18.0, and 20.0% in the placebo group. Responder rates for improvement in symptoms of the chief complaint that patients had before administration were 53.2% in the ramosetron 5 μg group and 42.0% in the placebo group at the last point. The greatest symptomatic improvement in the chief complaint in the ramosetron 5 μg group compared to the placebo group was shown with respect to stool consistency. Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS) scores were significantly lower in the ramosetron group than in the placebo group (4.36 ± 1.195 vs 4.85 ± 0.890 at the last point, P = 0.027) throughout the treatment period, except at week 6.

CONCLUSIONS

Ramosetron acted most effectively on stool consistency. Improvement in stool consistency is considered to be a clinically meaningful endpoint in showing how ramosetron was effective for individual IBS symptoms. (Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT00918411. Registered 9 June 2009).

Evaluation of the irritable bowel syndrome severity index in Japanese male patients with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea

Background

Previous studies have indicated that ramosetron, a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, achieves global improvement in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) symptoms in male patients with IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D). However, in addition to global assessment it was deemed important to assess “clinically meaningful improvements, focusing on the patient’s chief complaint and the severity of major IBS symptoms”. We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase IV pilot study to explore and examine efficacy variables that allow such evaluation of ramosetron in male patients with IBS-D.

Methods

We performed a prospective study of 115 male outpatients with IBS-D (according to the Rome III criteria), from June 2009 to December 2009 at 25 centers in Japan. After a one-week baseline period, subjects received either 5 μg of ramosetron (n = 47) or placebo (n = 51) once daily for 12 weeks. To evaluate “clinically meaningful improvements focusing on the severity of major IBS symptoms,” the Japanese version of the IBS severity index (IBSSI-J) was used.

Results

Change in IBSSI-J overall score from baseline was −133.5 ± 110.72 in the ramosetron 5 μg group and −108.2 ± 94.44 in the placebo group (P = 0.228) at the last evaluation point. Differences in responder rates for at least a 50% reduction from baseline in IBSSI-J between the ramosetron 5 μg group and the placebo group were over 10%, except Month 1. The monthly responder rate for global assessment of relief of overall IBS symptoms in the ramosetron 5 μg group showed a statistically significant improvement compared to placebo at the second month (44.4% vs 18.4%, P = 0.012). The proportion of patients who had a ≥ 50% reduction in IBSSI-J overall score was 24/37 (64.9%) in the responder group on global assessment and 18/54 (33.3%) in the non-responder group at Week 12.

Conclusions

Further examination will be needed before IBSSI-J can be used in clinical trials of agents for IBS-D. However, this study revealed that response on global assessment was correlated with improvement in the IBSSI-J, suggesting that global assessment reflects improvement of the symptom severity of patients with IBS-D. (Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT00918411 Registered 9 June 2009).