Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Rao SS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10759335 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Rao Satish S SS Manabe Noriaki N Karasawa Yusuke Y Hasebe Yuko Y Nozawa Kazutaka K Nakajima Atsushi A Fukudo Shin S

BMC gastroenterology 20240102 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To comprehensively evaluate the efficacy, safety, patient symptoms, and quality-of-life (QoL) of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat as treatment for chronic constipation (CC).<h4>Design</h4>Systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis (MA). Literature searches were conducted on PubMed and Embase using the Ovid platform.<h4>Methods</h4>SLR including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies was conducted to identify the overall efficacy and saf ...[more]

PMID: 38166671

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveSchizophrenia clinical trials commonly measure observed changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. However, it is more intuitive to think of response vs nonresponse, a binary outcome. Assessing binary outcomes enables calculation of number needed to treat (NNT) for therapeutic outcomes, number needed to harm (NNH) for adverse outcomes, and likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH) to demonstrate benefit/risk tradeoffs. Here, NNT, NNH, and LHH were used to evaluate the clinical usefulness of aripiprazole lauroxil in patients with an acute schizophrenia exacerbation.MethodsCategorical efficacy and tolerability data were taken from the pivotal Phase 3 trial evaluating aripiprazole lauroxil for treatment of an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. NNT and NNH values, with 95% CIs, were calculated in this post hoc analysis.ResultsUsing the intent-to-treat population for the pooled doses of aripiprazole lauroxil (441 mg [n=196] and 882 mg [n=204] q4w), responder rates (≥30% improvement from baseline PANSS total score) were 35.3% for aripiprazole lauroxil arms vs 18.4% for placebo (n=196), yielding a NNT of 6 (95% CI: 5-11). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events (AEs) were higher among patients randomized to placebo than to either aripiprazole lauroxil dose. Akathisia was the only AE with an incidence ≥5% in each aripiprazole lauroxil group and at least twice that of placebo (11.6%, 11.5%, and 4.3% of the patients receiving aripiprazole lauroxil 441 mg, 882 mg, and placebo, respectively), producing a NNH of 14 (95% CI: 9-33) for pooled aripiprazole lauroxil doses vs placebo. Calculating LHH for therapeutic response vs akathisia, aripiprazole lauroxil was 2.3 times more likely to result in a therapeutic response than an incident of akathisia.ConclusionUsing metrics of NNT, NNH, and LHH, aripiprazole lauroxil was an efficacious and well-tolerated intervention in a pivotal study in patients with an acute schizophrenia exacerbation.

Project description:IntroductionSubcutaneous galcanezumab was an effective, well-tolerated preventive treatment for adults with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) in 4 phase 3 randomized controlled trials: EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, REGAIN, and CONQUER. Number needed to treat (NNT) and to harm (NNH) are metrics of effect size used to evaluate benefit-risk profiles. This study evaluated NNT, NNH, and benefit-risk profiles (measured as likelihood to be helped or harmed, LHH) of galcanezumab 120 mg versus placebo in patients with EM or CM.MethodsPrimary efficacy outcomes were responses defined as ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%, and ≥ 75% reductions from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days in patients with EM (EVOLVE-1; EVOLVE-2; CONQUER) and CM (REGAIN; CONQUER); corresponding NNTs to achieve respective responses; and corresponding NNHs for discontinuations due to adverse events (DCAEs) among the safety population. Secondary efficacy outcomes were responses for patients with ≥ 2 failed prior preventive treatments due to lack of efficacy and/or for tolerability reasons. All LHHs were based on ≥ 50% response and DCAEs.ResultsDuring double-blind treatment periods with galcanezumab 120 mg, NNT to achieve ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% responses ranged from 4 to 10 and NNT to achieve ≥ 75% responses ranged from 5 to 23 in individual trials. NNH ranged from 93 to 1000, while LHH ranged from 18.6 to 104.6. NNTs were generally more robust among patients with EM than with CM; however, in patients with failure of ≥ 2 prior preventive treatments, NNTs to achieve ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% responses were similar between patients with CM and EM. NNHs were imputed as 1000 for both migraine types. Resulting LHHs were 178.8 (EM) and 127 (CM).ConclusionAcross 4 trials, galcanezumab 120 mg demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile versus placebo, based on low NNTs to achieve response and high NNHs associated with DCAEs. LHH values consistently far exceeded 1.Trial registration numbersEVOLVE-1: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614183; EVOLVE-2: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614196; REGAIN: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614261; CONQUER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03559257.

Project description:IntroductionThe objective was to use the evidence-based medicine metrics of number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed to appraise the clinical efficacy and tolerability of sublingual dexmedetomidine in adults with agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.MethodsSublingual dexmedetomidine data for this post hoc analysis were obtained from two similarly designed, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of adults with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Response to treatment was defined as a ≥ 40% reduction from baseline in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PEC). Tolerability was assessed by evaluating rates of adverse events.ResultsThe number needed to treat (95% confidence interval) estimate versus placebo for PEC response at 2 h post-dose was 3 (2, 3) for the sublingual dexmedetomidine 180-µg group (n = 125) and 3 (3, 4) for the 120-µg group (n = 129) in the study of patients with schizophrenia and 3 (2, 3) for the sublingual dexmedetomidine 180-µg group (n = 126) and 4 (3, 6) for the 120-µg group (n = 126) in the study of patients with bipolar disorder. Number needed to harm values versus placebo were greater than 10 for all adverse events except somnolence, where the number needed to harm (95% confidence interval) was 7 (5, 10) for all doses pooled from both studies. In all instances, likelihood to be helped or harmed values were greater than 1 for efficacy versus applicable tolerability outcomes.ConclusionsThe number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed of sublingual dexmedetomidine support a favorable benefit-risk profile in adults with acute agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04268303 , NCT04268303.Clinicaltrialsgov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04276883 , NCT04276883.

Dataset Information

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

Objective

Design

Methods

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets