Lacy, Brian E.

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.

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.

Purpose of review Gastroparesis (GP) is a syndrome defined by symptoms and delayed gastric emptying in the absence of mechanical obstruction. Typical symptoms include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and early satiety. Only one medication is currently FDA-approved for the treatment of GP. This review highlights recent research findings pertaining to GP and provides evidence to support a change in the current GP diagnostic and treatment paradigm. Recent findings An analysis of GP trials over the past four decades demonstrates the power of placebo and the need to perform longer studies with clearly defined patient populations. Two studies highlight the need to evaluate patients with suspected GP carefully and to perform gastric emptying studies properly. The misdiagnosis of GP symptoms is reviewed, preceded by a discussion of whether GP should be considered a disorder of gut-brain interaction. Finally, new data on therapies that target the pylorus are highlighted. Summary Gastroparesis is frequently over-diagnosed and incorrectly diagnosed. Performing a proper gastric emptying study which adheres to standard protocol, and accurately interpreting the results in the context of the individual patient, are critical to making an accurate diagnosis of GP. The treatment paradigm needs to shift from simply aiming to accelerate gastric emptying to treating global symptoms of a chronic syndrome that may represent gut-brain dysfunction in many patients.

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.

Abstract: Disorders of gastric motor and sensory function affect 10%-20% of the world’s population and adversely impact nutrition, quality of life, work productivity, and health care costs. Classifying these disorders can be challenging given the heterogeneity of symptom presentation, the presence of symptoms unexplained by endoscopic, radiographic and/or laboratory evaluation, and overlap with other luminal gastrointestinal disorders. Accurately diagnosing these highly prevalent disorders relies upon an understanding of epidemiology and risk factors, the ability to take a careful clinical history focused on symptoms, and the presence of predisposing medical, surgical, and psychological conditions. A variety of diagnostic studies are now available to assess gastric motor function and identify maladaptive relaxation, accommodation, and abnormal sensation. FDA-approved treatment options are limited and thus many patients undergo a series of empirical treatment trials that target individual symptoms, often without much benefit. This article provides updated recommendations for identifying and classifying the most common gastric motor and sensory disorders using currently accepted diagnostic tests, and provides a brief supplemental overview on treatment options. “Things sweet to taste prove in digestion sour.” –Shakespeare, Richard II , 1595.