Effects of treatment with eluxadoline on abdominal pain in patients with IBS-D: Additional post hoc analyses of Phase 3 trials

Visceral analgesic effect of eluxadoline (Viberzi): A central action

Painful bladder syndrome and irritable bowel syndrome affect 10%-15% of the global population. Current treatment options for these syndromes are ineffective in severe disease progression and are fraught with adverse effects. Prolonged use of conventional opioids causes constipation, respiratory depression, tolerance, and addiction. Bifunctional opioid ligands with mixed agonist/antagonist profiles at 2 types of opioid receptors (ORs) possess therapeutic advantages. Eluxadoline (ELX, Viberzi), a drug for diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome, has an agonistic effect on μ-opioid receptor (MOR) and an antagonistic effect on δ-opioid receptor (DOR). ELX alleviates pain and normalizes peristalsis by activating MOR without causing constipation, a DOR antagonistic effect. However, its mechanism of analgesic action is not known. We investigated the analgesic mechanism of ELX in colon and bladder pain by recording the visceromotor responses (VMRs) to painful distension of the organ and identified the site of action of the drug in pain signaling pathways. ELX inhibited VMRs via the activation of spinal MOR. The peripherally restricted MOR antagonist naloxone-methiodide (meth-NLX) did not reverse the VMR inhibition by ELX, whereas centrally acting NLX reversed it. ELX did not inhibit the excitation of mechanosensitive afferent fibers in lumbar 6 (L6) and sacral 1 (S1) dorsal root innervating the bladder or colon. In contrast, ELX inhibited excitation of bladder distension-responsive L6 and S1 spinal neurons. The inhibition was reversed by NLX, but not by meth-NLX. Electrophysiology results reinforce behavioral experiments suggesting that ELX produces analgesia by attenuating responses of spinal neurons, but not visceral sensory afferents. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The bifunctional opioid ligand eluxadoline is an FDA-approved drug for the treatment of diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome to normalize bowel movement and to relieve abdominal pain. This study documents for the first time to our knowledge that unlike its peripheral action to normalize diarrhea, the drug alleviates colon and bladder pain centrally by modulating responses of lumbo-sacral (L6-S1) spinal neurons.

Efficacy and safety of olorinab, a full agonist of the cannabinoid receptor 2, for the treatment of abdominal pain in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: Results from a phase 2b randomized placebo-controlled trial (CAPTIVATE)

BACKGROUND

Olorinab is a highly selective, peripherally acting, full agonist of cannabinoid receptor 2. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of olorinab to treat abdominal pain in patients with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D) and constipation (IBS-C).

METHODS

CAPTIVATE was a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Eligible participants aged 18-70 years with IBS-C and IBS-D diagnosed per Rome IV received olorinab 10 mg, 25 mg, or 50 mg three times daily (TID) or placebo TID for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in patient-reported average abdominal pain score (AAPS) from baseline to Week 12.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 273 participants were randomized to receive olorinab 10 mg (n = 67), olorinab 25 mg (n = 67), olorinab 50 mg (n = 69), or placebo (n = 70). Although a treatment response was observed across all groups, the weekly change in average AAPS from baseline to Week 12 was not significantly different between placebo and any olorinab dose. In a prespecified subgroup analysis of participants with a baseline AAPS ≥6.5, olorinab 50 mg (n = 35) significantly improved AAPS compared with placebo (n = 30) (p = 0.014). Adverse event rates were comparable between olorinab and placebo and there were no reported serious adverse events or deaths.

CONCLUSION AND INFERENCES

Although olorinab was well-tolerated and improved weekly AAPS, the primary endpoint was not met. However, in participants with moderate-to-severe pain at baseline (AAPS ≥6.5), olorinab 50 mg significantly improved weekly AAPS compared with placebo.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov: NCT04043455.

Update on treatment of abdominal pain in irritable bowel syndrome: A narrative review

The objectives of this narrative review are to update readers on the current state-of-the-art regarding diverse approaches for the treatment of pain, global symptoms, or adequate relief in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The article appraises medications, dietary interventions including low fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) diet, fecal microbial transplantation (FMT), electrical approaches, and behavioral therapies including cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), gut-directed hypnotherapy (GDH), mindfulness, and open-label placebo. Current evidence demonstrates only modest benefit in global IBS symptoms and pain relief. A future approach that identifies pathophysiological mechanisms of IBS through validated biomarkers has the potential to individualize treatment of patients rather than sequential therapeutic trial and error approaches.

Safety and Efficacy of Eluxadoline in Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome-Diarrhea With or Without Bile Acid Diarrhea: Open-Label Study

BACKGROUND

Eluxadoline, a peripherally acting, mixed µ- and κ-opioid receptor (OR) agonist and δ-OR antagonist, is approved for treatment of adults with irritable bowel syndrome-diarrhea (IBS-D). About a third of IBS-D patients has bile acid diarrhea (BAD); opioids may stimulate TGR5 (bile acid) receptors.

AIM

To evaluate eluxadoline's efficacy on altered bowel functions and safety in IBS-D patients with or without BAD.

METHODS

In a single-center, phase 4, parallel-group, open-label study, patients with IBS-D (cohort 1) and patients with BAD were treated with eluxadoline, 100 mg tablets BID, with food for 4 weeks. Patients recorded bowel functions by electronic daily diary. BAD was based on fasting serum 7αC4 (> 52.5 ng/mL) or concurrent criteria of increased total or primary fecal BAs excreted in 48 h. We assessed efficacy on treatment compared to baseline in the two cohorts. Primary outcome measures were changes from baseline in average stool consistency Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS) score (range 1-7) and safety.

RESULTS

Mean changes from baseline in cohorts 1 and 2 (data presented in this order) were similar for: BSFS score averaged over 4 weeks' treatment (- 1.25 and - 1.09); daily bowel movement frequency (- 1.48 and - 0.79); daily urgent bowel movements (- 0.52 and - 0.80); IBS-QoL (5.9 and 13.6); serum 7αC4 (- 5.59 and - 8.78 ng/mL). There were no deaths, serious treatment-emergent adverse events, or discontinuations due to adverse events during the study.

CONCLUSION

Eluxadoline is similarly efficacious in the treatment of IBS-D and BAD, and it appears to be safe and efficacious as documented in large clinical trials.

Review article: current and future treatment approaches for IBS with constipation

BACKGROUND

Multiple efficacious therapies are currently available for treating irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C). IBS-C specific survey tools that assess symptom relief, treatment satisfaction, and quality of life are important for gauging real-world effectiveness.

AIMS/METHODS

This article reviews clinical trial efficacy data as well as survey data on adequate relief and quality of life from pivotal trials for lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide, tenapanor, and tegaserod. A brief discussion of agents in development with novel mechanisms of action is also provided.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

Quality of life and symptom metrics should be standardized and continue to be represented in future IBS-C trials. The choice of agent should be tailored to probability of improving symptoms, safety, tolerability, and cost.

Recent advances in diagnosis and management of irritable bowel syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarizes recent progress in the diagnosis and management of irritable bowel syndrome, with a focus on dietary and microbiota aspects.

RECENT FINDINGS

From a pathophysiological point of view, IBS is a multifactorial condition with both peripheral (transit) as central (visceral hypersensitivity, anxiety, depression) contribution in a cumulative fashion to the symptom pattern and severity. More recently, the focus has shifted to diet and microbiota. The number of dietary options that can be used for IBS and the understanding of determinants of their efficacy is rapidly increasing. Several studies have confirmed the efficacy of the low fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) diet. Sucrose-isomaltase deficiency has emerged as pathogenetic mechanisms in a subset of patients, who do not respond to low FODMAP diet but may respond to starch and sucrose elimination. Herbal remedies, probiotics and secretagogues have been the topic of additional treatment trials. The efficacy of fecal microbiota transplantation in IBS is variable across studies, but donor selection is emerging as a critical factor.

SUMMARY

Irritable bowel syndrome has evolved into a disorder of interaction between dietary factors and gut microbiota, with impact on bowel symptoms as well as extra-intestinal, central, symptoms. Dietary adjustments and treatments targeting the gut microbiota are areas of active research and clinical progress.