Citations

Linked ContentThis article is linked to Ford et al and Sun et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15001 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15230.

Summary Background Irritable bowel syndrome ( IBS ) is a chronic functional bowel disorder. Disturbances in the gastrointestinal microbiome may be involved in its aetiology. Aim To perform a systematic review and meta‐analysis to examine the efficacy of prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics and antibiotics in IBS . Methods MEDLINE , EMBASE , and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to July 2017). Randomised controlled trials ( RCT s) recruiting adults with IBS , comparing prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics or antibiotics with placebo or no therapy were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk ( RR ) of remaining symptomatic after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval ( CI ). Continuous data were pooled using a standardised mean difference with a 95% CI . Results The search identified 4017 citations. Data for prebiotics and synbiotics were sparse. Fifty‐three RCT s of probiotics, involving 5545 patients, were eligible. Particular combinations of probiotics, or specific species and strains, appeared to have beneficial effects on global IBS symptoms and abdominal pain, but it was not possible to draw definitive conclusions about their efficacy. There were five trials of similar design that used rifaximin in non‐constipated IBS patients, which was more effective than placebo ( RR of symptoms persisting = 0.84; 95% CI 0.79‐0.90). Adverse events were no more common with probiotics or antibiotics. Conclusions Which particular combination, species or strains of probiotics are effective for IBS remains, for the most part, unclear. Rifaximin has modest efficacy in improving symptoms in non‐constipated IBS .

OBJECTIVES: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic functional bowel disorder that is thought to be due to a disorder of brain–gut function. Drugs acting centrally, such as antidepressants, and psychological therapies may, therefore, be effective. METHODS: We updated a previous systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to July 2017). Trials recruiting adults with IBS, which compared antidepressants versus placebo, or psychological therapies versus control therapy or “usual management” were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: The search strategy identified 5316 citations. Fifty-three RCTs, reported in 51 separate articles, were eligible for inclusion: 17 compared antidepressants with placebo, 35 compared psychological therapies with control therapy or “usual management”, and one compared both psychological therapy and antidepressants with placebo. Four of the trials of psychological therapies, and one of the RCTs of antidepressants, were identified since our previous meta-analysis. The RR of IBS symptoms not improving with antidepressants versus placebo was 0.66 (95% CI 0.57–0.76), with similar treatment effects for both tricyclic antidepressants and SSRIs, although with heterogeneity between RCTs of the latter ( I 2 = 49%, P = 0.07). The RR of symptoms not improving with psychological therapies was 0.69 (95% CI 0.62–0.76). Cognitive behavioral therapy, relaxation therapy, multi-component psychological therapy, hypnotherapy, and dynamic psychotherapy were all beneficial when data from two or more RCTs were pooled. There was significant heterogeneity between studies ( I 2 = 69%, P < 0.001) and significant funnel plot asymmetry. There were also issues regarding trial design, including lack of blinding. CONCLUSIONS: Antidepressants are efficacious in reducing symptoms in IBS patients. Psychological therapies also appear to be effective treatments for IBS, although there are limitations in the quality of the evidence, and treatment effects may be overestimated as a result.

Background and aims The functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) are extremely common conditions associated with a considerable personal, social and health economic burden. Managing FGIDs in clinical practice is challenging because of the uncertainty of symptom-based diagnosis, the high frequency of overlap between these conditions and the limited efficacy of available therapies. It has often been argued that successful drug development and management of FGIDs requires knowledge of the underlying pathophysiology. Numerous and highly variable candidate pathophysiological mechanisms have been implicated in the generation of FGID symptoms, but there is no current consensus on how to best define the relevance of these disturbances. Methods A group of international experts on FGIDs developed plausibility criteria that should be fulfilled by relevant pathophysiological mechanisms in FGIDs. Results Five criteria are proposed: (1) the presence of the abnormality in a subset of patients, (2) temporal association between proposed mechanism and symptom(s), (3) correlation between the level of impairment of the mechanism and symptom(s), (4) induction of the symptom(s) by provoking the pathophysiological abnormality in healthy subjects and (5) treatment response by a therapy specifically correcting the underlying disorder or congruent natural history of symptoms and dysfunction in the absence of specific therapy. Based on strength of evidence for these five criteria according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system, a plausibility score can be calculated for each mechanism. Conclusion Evaluation of the strength of evidence for candidate pathophysiological abnormalities fulfilling these five plausibility criteria will help to identify the most relevant mechanisms to target for novel diagnostic approaches and for the development of new therapies.

BackgroundPrucalopride is a selective, high‐affinity, 5‐hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) type 4 (5‐HT4) receptor agonist with gastrointestinal prokinetic activities. This integrated analysis of data from three double‐blind phase III trials (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00488137, NCT00483886, NCT00485940) compared the efficacy and safety of prucalopride 2 mg once daily in women with chronic constipation [≤2 spontaneous complete bowel movements (SCBM) per week] in whom laxatives had failed to provide adequate relief with that in the all‐patient (AP) population of men and women with chronic constipation who had or had not obtained relief from laxatives.MethodsPatients received prucalopride 2 mg or placebo once‐daily for 12 weeks. Efficacy endpoints included an average of ≥3 SCBM/week and average increases of ≥1 SCBM/week and ≥1 SBM/week over this period. A response on any of these three endpoints was considered to be clinically relevant, and an overall response rate was derived for patients satisfying any of these endpoints.ResultsOf the AP population (n = 1318), 936 were women in whom laxatives had failed to provide adequate relief (WLF). More patients on prucalopride 2 mg than placebo had an average of ≥3 SCBM/week (AP 24.4 vs 11.0%; WLF 24.7 vs 9.2%), an average increase of ≥1 SCBM/week (AP 43.5 vs 24.8%; WLF 44.2 vs 22.6%), and an average increase of ≥1 SBM/week (AP 66.7 vs 38.4%; WLF 68.3 vs 37.0%) (all p < 0.001). Significant differences from placebo were evident in week 1 and sustained thereafter. Overall response rates in the AP and WLF populations, respectively, were 69.7 and 71.0% with prucalopride 2 mg and 44.5 and 41.6% with placebo (p < 0.001). Early (weeks 1–4) response predicted ultimate response over time. Common (>10%) adverse events were abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhoea, and headache.ConclusionsPrucalopride 2 mg once daily is effective in WLF. The efficacy and safety profile observed in WLF was similar to that in the total evaluated population of patients with chronic constipation who had or had not obtained adequate relief from laxatives.

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.