[Pharmacotherapy in Patients with Chronic Constipation]

[A Randomized, Double-blind, Active-controlled Exploratory Clinical Trial for the Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of Goodmorning S Granule® on Constipation]

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Constipation is a common gastrointestinal disease that reduces the quality of life and incurs considerable medical expenses. Bisacodyl and sodium docusate are generally used to treat constipation. This study assessed the effectiveness and safety of Goodmorning S Granule^® (Hanpoong Pharm. Co., Ltd., Wanju, Korea) in functional constipation by a comparison with bisacodyl.

METHODS

A 2-week randomized, double-blind, active-controlled exploratory clinical trial was conducted to compare the treatment (Goodmorning S Granule^®) with the control (bisacodyl). The efficacy was measured by the changes in transition, Bristol stool type, stomachache, clinical manifestation, defecation time after drug consumption, 36-item short-form survey (SF-36), and the results of improvement evaluation. The safety was evaluated by the incidence of adverse drug events and vital signs. Additional analyses were conducted by dividing the severity according to the proportion of Bristol Stool Scale types 1 and 2.

RESULTS

Subjects were randomized to the treatment (n=24) or control (n=26) groups. No significant differences were observed in demographics. After 2 weeks from the baseline, the changes in the complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) were higher in the treatment (4.00±2.62) group than in the control group (1.40±2.34) (p<0.05). The treatment group exhibited significant improvement in the score on the SF-36 questionnaire. The clinical side effects, such as stomachache and borborygmus, were reduced in the moderate constipation patients in the treatment group, according to additional analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Goodmorning S Granule^®, a herbal medicine, was more effective in improving quality of life and CSBM per week and safer in the moderate constipation groups because of the reduced clinical side effects.

Pentoxifylline, a nonselective phosphodiesterase inhibitor, in adjunctive therapy in patients with irritable bowel syndrome treated with mebeverine

BACKGROUND

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a functional gastrointestinal condition marked by chronic bowel pain or discomfort, as well as changes in abdominal motility. Despite its worldwide prevalence and clinical impact, the cause of IBS is unknown. Inflammation could play a fundamental role in the development of IBS. The aim of this study was to examine whether pentoxifylline, a competitive nonselective phosphodiesterase inhibitor, is useful in alleviating abdominal pain in IBS patients treated with mebeverine.

METHODS

A randomized, controlled, and prospective clinical study that included 50 outpatients who met the inclusion criteria for IBS. Patients are allocated randomly into two groups (n = 25). Group 1 (mebeverine group) received mebeverine 135 mg three times daily (t.i.d) for three months. Group 2 (pentoxifylline group) received mebeverine 135 mg t.i.d and pentoxifylline 400 mg two times daily for three months. Patients were assessed by a gastroenterologist at baseline and three months after the medication had been started. The serum levels of interleukin-6, interleukin-8 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha, fecal Neutrophil Gelatinase Associated Lipocalin (NGAL), and fecal myeloperoxidase were measured at the start and after three months of therapy. The Numeric Pain Rating scale (NRS) was assessed at baseline and after therapy.

RESULTS

the pentoxifylline group showed a significant decrease in the level of measured biomarkers and a significant decrease in NRS.

CONCLUSION

Pentoxifylline could be a promising adjuvant anti-inflammatory drug in the treatment of abdominal pain in IBS patients treated with mebeverine.

Medical Management of Constipation in Elderly Patients: Systematic Review

Background/Aims

Constipation is a common gastrointestinal problem in the elderly. Because of the limitations of life style modifications and the comorbidity, laxative use is also very common. Therefore, this study reviews the latest literature on the effect and safety of laxative in the elderly.

Methods

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials investigating the effectiveness and safety of laxatives for constipation in elderly patients over 65 years old were performed using the following databases PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library.

Results

Twenty-three randomized controlled trials were included in this review. Among the selected studies, 9 studies compared laxative with placebo and 5 studies compared laxatives of the same type. Four studies compared different types of laxatives or compared combination agents. Five studies compared novel medications such as prucalopride, lubiprostone, and elobixibat with placebo. Psyllium, calcium polycarbophil, lactulose syrup, lactitol, polyethylene glycol, magnesium hydroxide, stimulant laxative with or without fiber, and other medications were more effective than placebo in elderly constipation patients in short-term. Generally, the frequency and severity of adverse effects of laxative were similar between the arms of studies.

Conclusions

Bulk laxative, osmotic laxative, stimulant laxative with or without fiber, and other medications can be used in elderly patients in short-term within 3 months with reasonable safety. However, the quality of included studies was not high and most of studies was conducted in a small number of patients. Among these laxatives, polyethylene glycol seems to be safe and effective in long-term use of about 6 months in elderly patients.

Safety/Efficacy of Prucalopride in Korean Patients with Chronic Constipation: Post-marketing Surveillance

Background/Aims

Constipation is a common gastrointestinal disorder. Prucalopride is a dihydrobenzofurancarboxamide derivative with gastrointestinal prokinetic activities and is recommended as an appropriate choice in patients unresponsive to laxatives. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of prucalopride in Korean patients with chronic constipation, in whom laxatives were ineffective.

Methods

This prospective, non-interventional post-marketing surveillance of prucalopride was conducted from 2012 to 2018 at 28 hospitals in Korea. Adults who received prucalopride for the symptomatic treatment of chronic constipation were included. The patients received 2 mg of prucalopride once daily or 1 mg once daily in patients older than 65 years. The baseline characteristics, adverse events (AEs), and seven-point scale of Clinical Global Impression-Improvement were collected.

Results

Of 601 patients, 67.7% were female, and the mean age was 62.3 years. Three hundred patients (49.9%) were older than 65 years. At the baseline, 70.0% of patients reported less than two instances of spontaneous complete bowel movements per week. AEs were reported in 107 patients (17.7%), including headache (3.2%) and diarrhea (2.8%). Seven serious AEs (SAEs) were reported in five patients (0.8%). The SAEs were resolved without complications; there were no cases of death. All SAEs were assessed as 'unlikely' causality with prucalopride. In 72.7% of patients, chronic constipation was improved by the prucalopride treatment during the study period.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated the promising safety and efficacy profile of prucalopride in clinical practice. Thus, prucalopride should be considered in patients with chronic constipation when bowel symptoms are refractory to simple laxatives.