Myths and misconceptions about the evaluation and treatment of constipation persist. Many widely prevalent misconceptions about laxatives, specifically stimulant laxatives, interfere with the effective management of constipation. Although some of these myths and misconceptions have been dispelled in recent years, there is additional room for improving the awareness and understanding of the pathophysiology of constipation, the mechanisms of action and the efficacy and safety of available therapies. An evolution in our understanding of pathophysiology and the availability of new treatments requires that primary care practitioners be better positioned to treat this common disorder that reduces patients’ quality of life and negatively impacts the healthcare system. This review defines constipation and elucidates various factors that contribute to its aetiology, including lifestyle, dietary habits, medications and underlying medical conditions. This review addresses and refutes common myths and misconceptions about constipation, such as the belief that regular bowel movements must occur daily or the use of laxatives leads to dependence. This review also highlights the importance of distinguishing between normal and abnormal bowel habits and emphasises the need for individualised management approaches to address constipation effectively. Finally, the review discusses different classes of laxatives, dispelling misconceptions about their safety, efficacy and potential for misuse, with a specific focus on stimulant laxatives. In summary, this review enhances awareness and knowledge of this prevalent disorder, provides evidence-based insights into common myths and misconceptions surrounding constipation and promotes more informed decision-making regarding constipation and the use of laxatives.
Prokinetics‐safety and efficacy: The European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility/The American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society expert review
AbstractBackgroundProkinetics are a class of pharmacological drugs designed to improve gastrointestinal (GI) motility, either regionally or across the whole gut. Each drug has its merits and drawbacks, and based on current evidence as high‐quality studies are limited, we have no clear recommendation on one class or other. However, there remains a large unmet need for both regionally selective and/or globally acting prokinetic drugs that work primarily intraluminally and are safe and without systemic side effects.PurposeHere, we describe the strengths and weaknesses of six classes of prokinetic drugs, including their pharmacokinetic properties, efficacy, safety and tolerability and potential indications.
Efficacy and safety of vibegron for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome in women: Results of a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled phase 2 trial
AbstractBackgroundPreclinical and clinical studies suggest that β3‐adrenergic receptor activation may be a novel target for treating abdominal pain and gastrointestinal motility dysfunction in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). This proof‐of‐concept study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the β3‐adrenergic agonist vibegron in treating IBS‐related pain.MethodsAdult women with predominant‐diarrhea IBS (IBS‐D) or with mixed diarrhea/constipation (IBS‐M), diagnosed using Rome IV criteria, were randomized 1:1 to receive once‐daily vibegron 75 mg or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with IBS‐D considered abdominal pain intensity (API) weekly responders, defined as ≥30% reduction from baseline at week 12 in mean weekly worst abdominal pain over 24 hours using the API score. Patients completed a pain diary at baseline and at weeks 2, 4, 8, and 12. Safety was assessed by adverse events (AEs) in the overall IBS population.Key ResultsOf the 222 patients with IBS randomized (vibegron, N = 111; placebo, N = 111), 85% completed the trial. There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients with IBS‐D (vibegron, N = 66; placebo, N = 63) considered API weekly responders with vibegron vs. placebo (p = 0.8222) after 12 weeks. The incidence of AEs was comparable between treatment groups (33.3% each), with equal rates of worsening IBS symptoms (2.7% each).Conclusions and InferencesIn women with IBS‐D, vibegron was not associated with significant improvement in the percentage of API weekly responders. Vibegron was generally safe and well tolerated and, in particular, did not worsen IBS symptoms vs. placebo.