4.4 Article

Efficacy and safety of oral lubiprostone in constipated patients with or without irritable bowel syndrome: a randomized, placebo-controlled and dose-finding study

期刊

NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY AND MOTILITY
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 544-E205

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2982.2011.01668.x

关键词

chronic idiopathic constipation; irritable bowel syndrome; lubiprostone; Rome III criteria; type 2 chloride channel

资金

  1. Sucampo Pharma, Ltd.
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [20590693] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Lubiprostone is a prostone analog with a novel mechanism of action involving type-2 chloride channel activation. The aim of this work was to perform a dose-finding study for lubiprostone for the treatment of constipation with or without irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in Japan. Methods A total of 170 patients (128 without IBS and 42 with IBS) with chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) randomly received a placebo (n = 42) or 16 mu g (n = 41), 32 mu g (n = 43), or 48 mu g (n = 44) of lubiprostone daily for 2 weeks. Key Results There was a statistically significant and dose-dependent increase in change from baseline in the weekly average number of spontaneous bowel movements at week 1 (placebo: 1.5 +/- 0.4; 16 mu g: 2.3 +/- 0.4, 32 mu g: 3.5 +/- 0.5; and 48 mu g: 6.8 +/- 1.1, per week, mean +/- SE; P < 0.0001). These primary endpoint results were significant on stratified analysis when patients were limited to those without IBS (P < 0.0001). The primary endpoint in patients with IBS treated with 48 mu g of lubiprostone was significantly better than those given placebo (P = 0.0086). Dose dependency was also seen for the secondary efficacy endpoints. Lubiprostone produced no serious side effects. Conclusions & Inferences Our results suggest that lubiprostone produced a steady and effective improvement in the symptoms of CIC with or without IBS in a dose-dependent manner with a good safety profile and tolerability in a Japanese population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据