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

Nocebo effects and influencing factors in the randomized clinical trials of chronic constipation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Nocebo effects are unavoidable in randomized clinical trials. We aimed to assess the magnitude of nocebo effects and explore the influencing factors in chronic constipation.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to July 2022. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials investigating interventions in chronic constipation were included. We conducted a random effects meta-analysis of the proportion of adverse events (AEs) in placebo-treated participants and evaluated the effect of trial characteristics on nocebo effects.

KEY RESULTS

We identified 20,204 studies from the databases, of which 61 were included in the final analysis. The pooled placebo AE rate was 30.41%, and AE-related withdrawal rate was 1.53%. The most commonly reported AEs were headache (5.67%), diarrhea (4.45%), abdominal pain (3.98%), nasopharyngitis (3.39%), nausea (3.36%), and flatulence (2.95%). The placebo AE rate was lower in trials conducted in Asia compared to those in Europe, North America, and international trials. It was also lower in trials diagnosed by Rome III compared to clinician's opinion and Rome II. Additionally, the placebo AE rate was lower in single-center trials compared to multicenter trials, lower in 5-8 weeks therapy compared to 9-12 weeks therapy, lower in participants with FC compared to those with IBS-C and CC, lower in trials with 2 arms compared to 3 arms, and higher in trials with prokinetic drugs compared to secretagogues and laxatives.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

The placebo AE rate was 30.41% in patients with chronic constipation. Based on our findings, we recommend that researchers take the nocebo effects into consideration when designing and conducting clinical trials and adopt specific measures to mitigate the negative influence of nocebo effects.

Tenapanor in the Treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Constipation: Discovery, Efficacy, and Role in Management

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common disorder of gut-brain interaction (DGBI). IBS significantly impacts the quality of life of patients. Since its pathogenesis is unclear and can be multifactorial, it highlights the need for new and improved pharmaceutical drugs that not only improve bowel symptoms, but also address global IBS symptoms, such as abdominal pain. Tenapanor, a recently Food & Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medication for IBS with constipation (IBS-C), is a small molecule inhibitor of the sodium/hydrogen exchanger isoform 3 (NHE₃) that inhibits the absorption of sodium and phosphate in the gastrointestinal tract, resulting in fluid retention and softer stool. Furthermore, tenapanor reduces intestinal permeability to improve visceral hypersensitivity and abdominal pain. Due to its recent approval, tenapanor was not included in the recent IBS guidelines, however, it may be considered for IBS-C patients failing first-line treatment of soluble fiber. In this review article, we aim to provide in-depth information to the reader regarding the design of tenapanor, its development through Phase I, II and III randomized clinical trials, and its role in the treatment of IBS-C.

Examining the Nocebo Effect in Trials of Neuromodulators for Use in Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nocebo effects are thought to influence the rate of reported adverse events (AEs) and subject withdrawal in both the treatment and placebo groups of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Neuromodulators are commonly prescribed to treat disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs), but adherence to these medications is often limited by side effects such as headache, dry mouth, fatigue, and altered bowel habits. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the proportion and risk difference of patients who experienced side effects leading to withdrawal in the placebo arm versus the treatment arm of RCTs of neuromodulators for DGBIs. We also sought to estimate the risk of developing any AE in the placebo arm of these studies as well as the rate of specific individual adverse events.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Searches to identify RCTs that included terms for DGBIs and for commonly prescribed neuromodulators. We calculated pooled proportions of patients experiencing an AE leading to withdrawal in the active treatment group versus the placebo group with 95% confidence intervals (CI), the pooled proportions of patients experiencing any adverse event, the pooled proportions of patients experiencing specific adverse events such as dizziness and headache, the pooled proportions of patients experiencing severe adverse events and corresponding pooled risk differences with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

There were 30 RCTs included representing 2284 DGBI patients. 27 RCTs reported data on AEs leading to withdrawal. The pooled proportion of total patients with AEs leading to withdrawal in the placebo group was 4% (95% CI 0.02 - 0.04). The pooled proportion of patients with AEs leading to withdrawal who received neuromodulators was 9% (95% CI 0.06-0.13). In the 12 studies reporting data on patients experiencing at least one AE, the pooled proportion of patients experiencing any adverse event in the placebo group was 18% (95% CI 0.08 - 0.30), compared to 43% (95% CI 0.24 - 0.63) in the neuromodulator group. Thus, approximately 44% of the rate of withdrawal (0.04/0.09) and 42% of the rate reporting any side effects (0.18/0.43) in the neuromodulator group may be attributed to nocebo effects in the right context. Subgroup analysis by sex, medication class, risk of bias, and specific DGBIs revealed differing withdrawal rates. There was no statistically significant difference in patients experiencing individual AEs of dizziness, headache or diarrhea. Rates of dry mouth, fatigue and constipation were higher in treatment groups compared to placebo groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients with DGBIs in RCTs randomized to placebo groups frequently experience AEs and AEs that lead to withdrawal consistent with a strong nocebo effect. Non-specific AEs such as dizziness, headaches and diarrhea occurred similarly in patients receiving placebo compared to those receiving neuromodulators.

Slow, deep breathing intervention improved symptoms and altered rectal sensitivity in patients with constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Limited treatment options have been shown to alter the natural course of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Slow, deep breathing (SDB) is a common pain self-management intervention. This pilot study aimed to explore the impact of SDB on measures of autonomic and anorectal functions as well as patient-reported symptoms in constipation-predominant IBS (IBS-C).

METHODS

Eighty-five IBS-C patients were enrolled in this study and randomly assigned to the experimental group (Group A, n = 42) and the control group (Group B, n = 43). SDB was conducted at six breathing cycles per minute with an inhalation for 4 s and exhalation for 6 s at a ratio of 2:3 and repeated for 30 min during the intervention. All subjects underwent high-resolution anorectal manometry (HRAM) and completed the standardized IBS symptom severity system (IBS-SSS) questionnaire. Meanwhile, changes in stool consistency, weekly frequency of complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBMs), and weekly frequency of spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) were recorded. All IBS-C patients received electrocardiogram (ECG) recordings for heart rate variability (HRV) analysis at baseline, weeks 3, 6.

RESULTS

At baseline, no differences were found between Groups A and B. The IBS-SSS score and its five sub-scores of Group B patients were significantly higher at week 6 than those of Group A patients (all p < 0.001). Furthermore, compared with Group B patients, Group A patients had a significantly higher threshold volume for the first sensation (p < 0.001), desire to defecate (p = 0.017), and maximum tolerable volume (p = 0.018) at week 6 of the SDB treatment. We also noted significant improvements in stool consistency (p = 0.002), weekly SBM frequencies (p < 0.001), and weekly CSBM frequencies (p = 0.018) of Group A patients at week 6 when compared with Group B patients. Finally, the corrected high frequency (HF) of Group A patients was significantly higher than the HF of Group B patients at week 3 (p < 0.001) and at week 6 (p < 0.001). Likewise, patients in Group A had a significantly higher root mean square of the successive differences (RMSSD) than that of patients in Group B at week 3 (p < 0.001) and at week 6 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

We found that a 6-week SDB intervention improved symptoms and altered rectal sensation in IBS-C patients. Moreover, SDB enhanced vagal activity. These findings suggest that the effect of SDB on IBS-C may be due to mechanisms involving autonomic responses.

Functional bowel disorders with diarrhoea: Clinical guidelines of the United European Gastroenterology and European Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility

Irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea (IBS‐D) and functional diarrhoea (FDr) are the two major functional bowel disorders characterized by diarrhoea. In spite of their high prevalence, IBS‐D and FDr are associated with major uncertainties, especially regarding their optimal diagnostic work‐up and management. A Delphi consensus was performed with experts from 10 European countries who conducted a literature summary and voting process on 31 statements. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation criteria. Consensus (defined as >80% agreement) was reached for all the statements. The panel agreed with the potential overlapping of IBS‐D and FDr. In terms of diagnosis, the consensus supports a symptom‐based approach also with the exclusion of alarm symptoms, recommending the evaluation of full blood count, C‐reactive protein, serology for coeliac disease, and faecal calprotectin, and consideration of diagnosing bile acid diarrhoea. Colonoscopy with random biopsies in both the right and left colon is recommended in patients older than 50 years and in presence of alarm features. Regarding treatment, a strong consensus was achieved for the use of a diet low fermentable oligo‐, di‐, monosaccharides and polyols, gut‐directed psychological therapies, rifaximin, loperamide, and eluxadoline. A weak or conditional recommendation was achieved for antispasmodics, probiotics, tryciclic antidepressants, bile acid sequestrants, 5‐hydroxytryptamine‐3 antagonists (i.e. alosetron, ondansetron, or ramosetron). A multinational group of European experts summarized the current state of consensus on the definition, diagnosis, and management of IBS‐D and FDr.