Citations

SummaryBackgroundFunctional dyspepsia (FD), a common functional gastrointestinal disorder, is defined by the Rome III criteria as symptoms of epigastric pain or discomfort (prevalence in FD of 89–90%), postprandial fullness (75–88%), and early satiety (50–82%) within the last 3 months with symptom onset at least 6 months earlier. Patients cannot have any evidence of structural disease to explain symptoms and predominant symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux are exclusionary. Symptoms of FD are non‐specific and the pathophysiology is diverse, which explains in part why a universally effective treatment for FD remains elusive.AimTo present current management options for the treatment of FD (therapeutic gain/response rate noted when available).ResultsThe utility of Helicobacter pylori eradication for the treatment of FD is modest (6–14% therapeutic gain), while the therapeutic efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) (7–10% therapeutic gain), histamine‐type‐2‐receptor antagonists (8–35% therapeutic gain), prokinetic agents (18–45%), tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) (response rates of 64–70%), serotonin reuptake inhibitors (no better than placebo) is limited and hampered by inadequate data. This review discusses dietary interventions and analyses studies involving complementary and alternative medications, and psychological therapies.ConclusionsA reasonable treatment approach based on current evidence is to initiate therapy with a daily PPI in H. pylori‐negative FD patients. If symptoms persist, a therapeutic trial with a tricyclic antidepressant may be initiated. If symptoms continue, the clinician can possibly initiate therapy with an anti‐nociceptive agent, a prokinetic agent, or some form of complementary and alternative medications, although evidence from prospective studies to support this approach is limited.

Chronic constipation is a highly prevalent disorder that affects approximately 15% of the US population. Chronic constipation refers to patients who have had symptoms for more than 6 months. In clinical practice, chronic constipation is often used interchangeably with the term functional constipation. This is best defined using the Rome III criteria, which involves an evaluation of stool frequency in addition to symptoms of straining, feelings of incomplete evacuation, and the need to use manual maneuvers to assist with stool evacuation. Symptoms can be burdensome, leading to a reduction in patients’ quality of life. As a national healthcare issue, chronic constipation is also important because it imposes a significant economic impact on the healthcare system. A number of treatment options are currently available, both over-the-counter and by prescription, although not all patients respond to these therapies. This review will focus on new medical treatment options for the management of chronic constipation, and the safety and efficacy of these agents will be reviewed. In addition, the efficacy of new diagnostic tests to evaluate colonic motility and anorectal function are described.

Summary Background The nonselective 5‐ HT 4 receptor agonists, cisapride and tegaserod have been associated with cardiovascular adverse events ( AEs ). Aim To perform a systematic review of the safety profile, particularly cardiovascular, of 5‐ HT 4 agonists developed for gastrointestinal disorders, and a nonsystematic summary of their pharmacology and clinical efficacy. Methods Articles reporting data on cisapride, clebopride, prucalopride, mosapride, renzapride, tegaserod, TD ‐5108 (velusetrag) and ATI ‐7505 (naronapride) were identified through a systematic search of the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and Toxfile. Abstracts from UEGW 2006–2008 and DDW 2008–2010 were searched for these drug names, and pharmaceutical companies approached to provide unpublished data. Results Retrieved articles on pharmacokinetics, human pharmacodynamics and clinical data with these 5‐ HT 4 agonists, are reviewed and summarised nonsystematically. Articles relating to cardiac safety and tolerability of these agents, including any relevant case reports, are reported systematically. Two nonselective 5‐ HT 4 agonists had reports of cardiovascular AEs : cisapride ( QT prolongation) and tegaserod (ischaemia). Interactions with, respectively, the hERG cardiac potassium channel and 5‐ HT 1 receptor subtypes have been suggested to account for these effects. No cardiovascular safety concerns were reported for the newer, selective 5‐ HT 4 agonists prucalopride, velusetrag, naronapride, or for nonselective 5‐HT 4 agonists with no hERG or 5‐ HT 1 affinity (renzapride, clebopride, mosapride). Conclusions 5‐ HT 4 agonists for GI disorders differ in chemical structure and selectivity for 5‐ HT 4 receptors. Selectivity for 5‐ HT 4 over non‐5‐ HT 4 receptors may influence the agent's safety and overall risk–benefit profile. Based on available evidence, highly selective 5‐ HT 4 agonists may offer improved safety to treat patients with impaired GI motility.