Citations

ABSTRACT Introduction Despite the emergence of drugs to treat irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), improving abdominal pain can still be challenging. α 2 δ ligands, such as gabapentin and pregabalin, are sometimes used off‐label to tackle this problem. However, evidence for efficacy is limited, and no large‐scale studies have been published. Aim To study the efficacy of the α 2 δ ligand PD‐217,014 in IBS. Methods This multi‐centre, double‐blind, randomised, placebo‐controlled, parallel group study randomised participants with Rome II‐defined IBS to 150 or 300 mg b.d. of PD‐217,014 or placebo b.d. for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was responder, defined as having adequate relief of abdominal pain/discomfort for ≥ 50% of the active treatment period. Key secondary endpoints were change from baseline in abdominal pain, bloating, stool frequency/consistency, and global assessment of IBS symptoms. Results We randomised 330 participants [aged 19–73 years; 209 (65%) female] satisfying Rome II criteria, 322 (98%) were treated, and of whom 271 (84%) completed the study. In this study, 321 satisfied Rome IV criteria. Neither dose of PD‐217,014 improved the percentage of participants reporting adequate relief of abdominal pain/discomfort compared with placebo, either using the Rome II‐defined total cohort or Rome II and IV IBS bowel habit sub‐types. There were similar observations for secondary endpoints, and no association between abdominal pain or anxiety levels at baseline with participant improvement. PD‐217,014 was generally well tolerated. Conclusion This first large, dose‐ranging trial examining the efficacy of PD‐217,014 showed no significant efficacy in participants with IBS or bowel habit sub‐types, irrespective of their pain and anxiety levels.

Background: There are multiple stroke guidelines globally. To synthesize these and summarize what existing stroke guidelines recommend about the management of people with stroke, the World Stroke Organization (WSO) Guideline committee, under the auspices of the WSO, reviewed available guidelines. Aims: To systematically review the literature to identify stroke guidelines (excluding primary stroke prevention and subarachnoid hemorrhage) since 1 January 2011, evaluate quality (The international Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE II)), tabulate strong recommendations, and judge applicability according to stroke care available (minimal, essential, advanced). Summary of review: Searches identified 15,400 titles; 911 texts were retrieved, 200 publications scrutinized by the three subgroups (acute, secondary prevention, rehabilitation), and recommendations extracted from most recent version of relevant guidelines. For acute treatment, there were more guidelines about ischemic stroke than intracerebral hemorrhage; recommendations addressed pre-hospital, emergency, and acute hospital care. Strong recommendations were made for reperfusion therapies for acute ischemic stroke. For secondary prevention, strong recommendations included establishing etiological diagnosis; management of hypertension, weight, diabetes, lipids, and lifestyle modification; and for ischemic stroke, management of atrial fibrillation, valvular heart disease, left ventricular and atrial thrombi, patent foramen ovale, atherosclerotic extracranial large vessel disease, intracranial atherosclerotic disease, and antithrombotics in non-cardioembolic stroke. For rehabilitation, there were strong recommendations for organized stroke unit care, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, task-specific training, fitness training, and specific interventions for post-stroke impairments. Most recommendations were from high-income countries, and most did not consider comorbidity, resource implications, and implementation. Patient and public involvement was limited. Conclusion: The review identified a number of areas of stroke care where there was strong consensus. However, there was extensive repetition and redundancy in guideline recommendations. Future guideline groups should consider closer collaboration to improve efficiency, include more people with lived experience in the development process, consider comorbidity, and advise on implementation.