86
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Efficacy and Safety of Elobixibat for the Elderly with Chronic Constipation: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Materials and Methods

          This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. The subjects were patients aged ≥20 years treated for chronic constipation from May 2018 to November 2019 at 12 related institutions. Patients were divided into ≤74 years and ≥75 years old. Elobixibat at 10 mg/day was prescribed for two weeks. We then analyzed the discontinuation due to ineffectiveness, change of spontaneous bowel movements (SBM), stool consistency, the time until the first SBM, adverse events, and effect-related factors.

          Results

          There were 140 cases (61 males) evaluated, with an average age of 72.1 ± 13.6 years (≤74 years: 71 cases; ≥75 years: 69 cases). The discontinuation rate was 7.9%. The SBM (times/week) increased from 2.86 to 6.08 ( p < 0.001). The overall SBM improvement rate was 74.0% (≤74 years: 78.2% vs. ≥75 years: 68.9%, p = 0.31; male: 75.0% vs. female: 73.3%, p = 0.78). The overall improvement rate of stool consistency was 59.6% (≤74 years: 62.9%, ≥75 years: 56.1%, p = 0.42). The time until the first SBM (hours) for those ≤74 years and ≥75 years was 17.2 ± 14.3 and 11.2 ± 8.4 ( p = 0.04). Adverse event rates for those ≤74 years and ≥75 years were 28.2% and 10.1% ( p < 0.01). There were no significant effect-related factors for gender, age, and use of laxatives.

          Conclusions

          Short-period elobixibat is shown to be effective also for the elderly and male.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Epidemiology of constipation in North America: a systematic review.

          The aim of this study was to systematically review the published literature regarding prevalence, risk factors, incidence, natural history, and the effect on quality of life of constipation in North America. A computer-assisted search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Current Contents databases was performed independently by two investigators. Study selection criteria included the following: (1) North American population-based sample of adults with constipation; (2) publication in full manuscript form in English; and (3) report on the prevalence, incidence, and natural history of constipation or impact of constipation on quality of life. Eligible articles were reviewed in a duplicate, independent manner. Data extracted were compiled in tables and presented in descriptive form. The estimates of the prevalence of constipation in North America ranged from 1.9% to 27.2%, with most estimates from 12% to 19%. Prevalence estimates by gender support a female-to-male ratio of 2.2:1. Constipation appears to increase with increasing age, particularly after age 65. No true population-based incidence studies or natural history studies were identified. In one cohort, 89% of patients with constipation still reported constipation at 14.7 months follow-up. From limited data, quality of life appears to be diminished by constipation, but the clinical significance of this is unclear. Constipation is very common, as approximately 63 million people in North America meet the Rome II criteria for constipation. Minimal data are available regarding incidence, natural history, and quality of life in patients with constipation. Effort should be expended toward the study of these topics, particularly in the elderly, who are disproportionately affected by this condition.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Two randomized trials of linaclotide for chronic constipation.

            Linaclotide is a minimally absorbed peptide agonist of the guanylate cyclase C receptor. In two trials, we aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of linaclotide in patients with chronic constipation. We conducted two randomized, 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, dual-dose trials (Trials 303 and 01) involving 1276 patients with chronic constipation. Patients received either placebo or linaclotide, 145 μg or 290 μg, once daily for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was three or more complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBMs) per week and an increase of one or more CSBMs from baseline during at least 9 of the 12 weeks. Adverse events were also monitored. For Trials 303 and 01, respectively, the primary end point was reached by 21.2% and 16.0% of the patients who received 145 μg of linaclotide and by 19.4% and 21.3% of the patients who received 290 μg of linaclotide, as compared with 3.3% and 6.0% of those who received placebo (P<0.01 for all comparisons of linaclotide with placebo). Improvements in all secondary end points were significantly greater in both linaclotide groups than in the placebo groups. The incidence of adverse events was similar among all study groups, with the exception of diarrhea, which led to discontinuation of treatment in 4.2% of patients in both linaclotide groups. In these two 12-week trials, linaclotide significantly reduced bowel and abdominal symptoms in patients with chronic constipation. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the potential long-term risks and benefits of linaclotide in chronic constipation. (Funded by Ironwood Pharmaceuticals and Forest Research Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00765882 and NCT00730015.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Multicenter, 4-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of lubiprostone, a locally-acting type-2 chloride channel activator, in patients with chronic constipation.

              To assess the efficacy and safety of lubiprostone in adults with chronic constipation. This multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind controlled trial enrolled 242 patients with constipation and randomized them to receive oral lubiprostone 24 mcg or placebo twice daily for 4 wk. The primary efficacy end point was the number of spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs; those occurring without use of constipation relieving medications) after 1 wk of double-blind treatment. Other evaluations included SBMs at weeks 2, 3, and 4; bowel movement (BM) characteristics (i.e., consistency and straining); constipation severity; abdominal bloating/discomfort; global treatment effectiveness ratings; and safety assessments. The 120 lubiprostone-treated patients reported a greater mean number of SBMs at week 1 compared with the 122 placebo-treated patients (5.69 vs 3.46, P= 0.0001), with a greater frequency of SBMs also reported at weeks 2, 3, and 4 (P
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Gastroenterol Res Pract
                Gastroenterol Res Pract
                GRP
                Gastroenterology Research and Practice
                Hindawi
                1687-6121
                1687-630X
                2020
                28 April 2020
                : 2020
                : 9656040
                Affiliations
                1Department of Gastroenterology, Saiseikai Kyoto Hospital, Kyoto, Japan
                2Department of Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto, Japan
                3Department of Gastroenterology, Akashi City Hospital, Hyogo, Japan
                4Department of Gastroenterology, Kyoto Kujo Hospital, Kyoto, Japan
                5Department of Gastroenterology, Kyoto City Hospital, Kyoto, Japan
                6Department of Gastroenterology, Nara City Hospital, Nara, Japan
                7Department of Gastroenterology, Nishijin Hospital, Kyoto, Japan
                8Department of Gastroenterology, Otsu City Hospital, Shiga, Japan
                9Department of Gastroenterology, Fukuchiyama City Hospital, Kyoto, Japan
                10Department of Gastroenterology, Ayabe City Hospital, Kyoto, Japan
                11Department of Gastroenterology, Osaka General Hospital of West Japan Railway Company, Osaka, Japan
                12Department of Gastroenterology, Japan Community Health Care Organization, Kyoto Kuramaguchi Medical Center, Kyoto, Japan
                13Department of Gastroenterology, Omihachiman Community Medical Center, Shiga, Japan
                14Gastroenterology Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Selangor, Malaysia
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Raquel Martín-Venegas

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6167-9705
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0418-1390
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0498-0144
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9301-8434
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1398-3988
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2916-2268
                Article
                10.1155/2020/9656040
                7204088
                5739f462-802c-4e2b-ac47-0bd2d314f2c4
                Copyright © 2020 Akira Tomie et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 10 February 2020
                : 1 April 2020
                : 6 April 2020
                Categories
                Research Article

                Gastroenterology & Hepatology
                Gastroenterology & Hepatology

                Comments

                Comment on this article