American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation

Considering traditional Chinese medicine as adjunct therapy in the management of chronic constipation by regulating intestinal flora

Chronic constipation is one of the most common gastrointestinal disorders worldwide. Due to changes in diet, lifestyle, and the aging population, the incidence of chronic constipation has increased year by year. It has had an impact on daily life and poses a considerable economic burden. Nowadays, many patients with chronic constipation try to seek help from complementary and alternative therapies, and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is often their choice. The intestinal flora play an important role in the pathogenesis of constipation by affecting the body's metabolism, secretion, and immunity. Regulating the intestinal flora and optimizing its composition might become an important prevention and treatment for chronic constipation. TCM has unique advantages in regulating the imbalance of intestinal flora, and its curative effect is precise. Therefore, we reviewed the relationship between intestinal flora and chronic constipation as well as advances in research on TCM as adjunct therapy in the management of chronic constipation by regulating intestinal flora. Some single Chinese herbs and their active ingredients (e.g., Rheum palmatum, Radix Astragalus, and Cistanche deserticola), some traditional herbal formulations (e.g., Jichuan decoction, Zengye decoction, and Zhizhu decoction) and some Chinese patent medicines (e.g., Maren pills and Shouhui Tongbian capsules) that are commonly used to treat chronic constipation by regulating intestinal flora are highlighted and summarized. Moreover, some external forms of TCM, and especially acupuncture, have also been found to improve intestinal movement and alleviate constipation symptoms by regulating intestinal flora. We hope this review can contribute to an understanding of TCM as an adjunct therapy for chronic constipation and that it can provide useful information for the development of more effective constipation therapies.

Managing gastrointestinal manifestations in systemic sclerosis, a mechanistic approach

INTRODUCTION

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a connective tissue disease with heterogeneous presentation. Gastrointestinal (GI) complications of SSc are characterized by esophageal reflux, abnormal motility, and microbiome dysbiosis, which impact patient quality of life and mortality. Preventative therapeutics are lacking, with management primarily aimed at symptomatic control.

AREAS COVERED

A broad literature review was conducted through electronic databases and references from key articles. We summarize the physiology of gastric acid production and GI motility to provide context for existing therapies, detail the current understanding of SSc-GI disease, and review GI medications studied in SSc. Finally, we explore new therapeutic options. We propose a management strategy that integrates data on drug efficacy with knowledge of disease pathophysiology, aiming to optimize future therapeutic targets.

EXPERT OPINION

SSc-GI complications remain a challenge for patients, clinicians, and investigators alike. Management presently focuses on treating symptoms and minimizing mucosal damage. Little evidence exists to suggest immunosuppressive therapy halts progression of GI involvement or reverses damage, leaving many unanswered questions about the optimal clinical approach. Further research focused on identifying patients at risk for GI progression, and the underlying mechanism(s) that drive disease will provide opportunities to prevent long-term damage, and significantly improve patient quality of life.

Are the Chicago 3.0 manometric diagnostics consistent with Chicago 4.0?

There is little information on the degree of concordance between the results obtained using the Chicago 3.0 (CCv3.0) and Chicago 4.0 (CCv4.0) protocols to interpret high-resolution manometry (HRM) seeking to determine the value provided by the new swallowing maneuvers included in the last protocol. This is a study of diagnostic tests, evaluating concordance by consistency between the results obtained by the CCv3.0 and CCv4.0 protocols, in patients undergoing HRM. Concordance was assessed with the kappa test. Bland-Altman scatter plots, and Lin's correlation-concordance coefficient (CCC) were used to assess the agreement between IRP measured with swallows in the supine and seated position or with solid swallows. One hundred thirty-two patients were included (65% women, age 53 ± 17 years). The most frequent HRM indication was dysphagia (46.1%). Type I was the most common type of gastroesophageal junction. The most frequent CCv4.0 diagnoses were normal esophageal motility (68.9%), achalasia (15.5%), and ineffective esophageal motility (IEM; 5.3%). The agreement between the results was substantial (Kappa 0.77 ± 0.05), with a total agreement of 87.9%. Diagnostic reclassification occurred in 12.1%, from IEM in CCv3.0 to normal esophageal motility in CCv4.0. Similarly, there was a high level of agreement between the IRP measured in the supine compared to the seated position (CCC0.92) and with solid swallows (CCC0.96). In conclusion, the CCv4.0 protocol presents a high concordance compared to CCv3.0. In the majority of manometric diagnoses there is no reclassification of patients with provocation tests. However, the more restrictive criteria of CCv4.0 achieve a better reclassification of patients with IEM.

Optimizing the Management Algorithm for Adults With Functional Constipation Failing a Fiber/Laxative Trial in General Gastroenterology: Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Minimization Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Anorectal function testing is traditionally relegated to subspecialty centers. Yet, it is an office-based procedure that appears capable of triaging care for the many patients with Rome IV functional constipation that fail empiric over-the-counter therapy in general gastroenterology, as an alternative to empirical prescription drugs. We aimed to evaluate cost-effectiveness of routine anorectal function testing in this specific population.

METHODS

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from the patient perspective and a cost-minimization analysis from the insurer perspective to compare 3 strategies: (i) empiric prescription drugs followed by pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) for drug failure, (ii) empiric PFPT followed by prescription drugs for PFPT failure, or (iii) care directed by up-front anorectal function testing. Model inputs were derived from systematic reviews of prospective clinical trials, national cost data sets, and observational cohort studies of the impact of chronic constipation on health outcomes, healthcare costs, and work productivity.

RESULTS

The most cost-effective strategy was upfront anorectal function testing to triage patients to appropriate therapy, in which the subset of patients without anal hypocontractility on anorectal manometry and with a balloon expulsion time of at least 6.5 seconds would be referred to PFPT. In sensitivity analysis, empiric PFPT was more cost effective than empiric prescription drugs except for situations in which the primary goal of treatment was to increase bowel movement frequency. If adopted, gastroenterologists would refer ∼17 patients per year to PFPT, supporting feasibility.

DISCUSSION

Anorectal function testing seems to be an emergent technology to optimize cost-effective outcomes, overcoming testing costs by phenotyping care.

Comparative profiles of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat for chronic constipation: a systematic literature review with meta-analysis and number needed to treat/harm

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively evaluate the efficacy, safety, patient symptoms, and quality-of-life (QoL) of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat as treatment for chronic constipation (CC).

DESIGN

Systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis (MA). Literature searches were conducted on PubMed and Embase using the Ovid platform.

METHODS

SLR including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies was conducted to identify the overall efficacy and safety of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat. Thereafter, MA was performed using only RCTs. The number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) analyses were additionally conducted.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was efficacy regarding change in spontaneous bowel movements. Secondary outcomes included safety, constipation-related symptoms, and QoL.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria for the SLR: 17 RCTs, 4 observational studies, and 3 single-arm trials. Feasibility assessment for the MA resulted in 14 studies available for safety data analysis, and 8 available for efficacy analysis, respectively. Three drugs showed similar efficacy in the MA and NNT analysis. However, the NNH analysis revealed distinct safety profiles: lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat were linked to the highest risk of nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The current study provides an updated overview of the efficacy, safety, patient symptoms, and QoL of the three drugs with different mechanisms of action for CC treatment.The findings could help physicians adopt an individualized approach for treating patients with CC in clinical practice.

Abnormal gastrointestinal motility is a major factor in explaining symptoms and a potential therapeutic target in patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction

The objective of this article is to review the evidence of abnormal gastrointestinal (GI) tract motor functions in the context of disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI). These include abnormalities of oesophageal motility, gastric emptying, gastric accommodation, colonic transit, colonic motility, colonic volume and rectal evacuation. For each section regarding GI motor dysfunction, the article describes the preferred methods and the documented motor dysfunctions in DGBI based on those methods. The predominantly non-invasive measurements of gut motility as well as therapeutic interventions directed to abnormalities of motility suggest that such measurements are to be considered in patients with DGBI not responding to first-line approaches to behavioural or empirical dietary or pharmacological treatment.

Prevalence and Burden of Illness of Rome IV Chronic Idiopathic Constipation, Opioid-Induced Constipation, and Opioid-Exacerbated Constipation in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) and opioid-induced constipation (OIC) are disorders that negatively affect quality of life. We sought to assess the prevalence, symptom severity, and medication use among people with Rome IV CIC, OIC, and opioid-exacerbated constipation (OEC) using a nationally representative data set with nearly 89,000 people in the United States.

METHODS

From May 3, 2020, to June 24, 2020, we recruited a representative sample of people in the United States ≥ 18 years to complete an online national health survey. The survey guided participants through the Rome IV CIC and OIC questionnaires, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System gastrointestinal scales (percentile 0-100; higher = more severe), and medication questions. Individuals with OEC were identified by asking those with OIC whether they experienced constipation before starting an opioid and whether their symptoms worsened afterward.

RESULTS

Among the 88,607 participants, 5,334 (6.0%) had Rome IV CIC, and 1,548 (1.7%) and 335 (0.4%) had Rome IV OIC and OEC, respectively. When compared with people with CIC (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System score, 53.9 ± 26.5; reference), those with OIC (62.7 ± 28.0; adjusted P < 0.001) and OEC (61.1 ± 25.8, adjusted P = 0.048) had more severe constipation symptoms. People with OIC (odds ratio 2.72, 95% confidence interval 2.04-3.62) and OEC (odds ratio 3.52, 95% confidence interval 2.22-5.59) were also more likely to be taking a prescription medication for their constipation vs those with CIC.

DISCUSSION

In this nationwide US survey, we found that Rome IV CIC is common (6.0%) while Rome IV OIC (1.7%) and OEC (0.4%) are less prevalent. Individuals with OIC and OEC have a higher burden of illness with respect to symptom severity and prescription constipation medication use.