Linaclotide in Chronic Idiopathic Constipation Patients with Moderate to Severe Abdominal Bloating: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Brian E Lacy, Ron Schey, Steven J Shiff, Bernard J Lavins, Susan M Fox, Xinwei D Jia, Rick E Blakesley, Xinming Hao, Jacquelyn A Cronin, Mark G Currie, Caroline B Kurtz, Jeffrey M Johnston, Anthony J Lembo, Brian E Lacy, Ron Schey, Steven J Shiff, Bernard J Lavins, Susan M Fox, Xinwei D Jia, Rick E Blakesley, Xinming Hao, Jacquelyn A Cronin, Mark G Currie, Caroline B Kurtz, Jeffrey M Johnston, Anthony J Lembo

Abstract

Background: Abdominal bloating is a common and bothersome symptom of chronic idiopathic constipation. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of linaclotide in patients with chronic idiopathic constipation and concomitant moderate-to-severe abdominal bloating.

Methods: This Phase 3b, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial randomized patients to oral linaclotide (145 or 290 μg) or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. Eligible patients met Rome II criteria for chronic constipation upon entry with an average abdominal bloating score ≥5 (self-assessment: 0 10-point numerical rating scale) during the 14-day baseline period. Patients reported abdominal symptoms (including bloating) and bowel symptoms daily; adverse events were monitored. The primary responder endpoint required patients to have ≥3 complete spontaneous bowel movements/week with an increase of ≥1 from baseline, for ≥9 of 12 weeks. The primary endpoint compared linaclotide 145 μg vs. placebo.

Results: The intent-to-treat population included 483 patients (mean age=47.3 years, female=91.5%, white=67.7%). The primary endpoint was met by 15.7% of linaclotide 145 μg patients vs. 7.6% of placebo patients (P<0.05). Both linaclotide doses significantly improved abdominal bloating vs. placebo (P<0.05 for all secondary endpoints, controlling for multiplicity). Approximately one-third of linaclotide patients (each group) had ≥50% mean decrease from baseline in abdominal bloating vs. 18% of placebo patients (P<0.01). Diarrhea was reported in 6% and 17% of linaclotide 145 and 290 μg patients, respectively, and 2% of placebo patients. AEs resulted in premature discontinuation of 5% and 9% of linaclotide 145 μg and 290 μg patients, respectively, and 6% of placebo patients.

Conclusions: Once-daily linaclotide (145 and 290 μg) significantly improved bowel and abdominal symptoms in chronic idiopathic constipation patients with moderate-to-severe baseline abdominal bloating; in particular, linaclotide significantly improved abdominal bloating compared to placebo, an important finding given the lack of agents available to treat abdominal bloating in chronic idiopathic constipation patients.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01642914.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have read the journal's policy and have the following competing interests: Drs. Brian E. Lacy (BEL) and Anthony J. Lembo (AJL) have served as paid consultants to Forest Laboratories and Ironwood Pharmaceuticals. Bernard J. Lavins, Xinming Hao, Jacquelyn A. Cronin, Mark G. Currie, Caroline B. Kurtz, and Jeffrey M. Johnston (BJL, XH, JAC, MGC, CBK, and JMJ) are employees of Ironwood Pharmaceuticals and own stock/stock options in Ironwood Pharmaceuticals. Steven J. Shiff, Susan M. Fox, Xinwei D. Jia, and Rick E. Blakesley (SJS, SMF, XDJ, and REB) are employees of Forest Laboratories and also own stock/stock options in Actavis plc. Actavis plc acquired Forest Laboratories, LLC in July 2014. This does not alter the authors' adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1. Patient Flow Through the Trial.
Fig 1. Patient Flow Through the Trial.
Screen failures who were rescreened and failed a second time during the screening period were counted once as screen failures. Screen failures who were rescreened, entered the baseline period, and then failed during the baseline period were counted once as pretreatment failures.
Fig 2. Primary Endpoint.
Fig 2. Primary Endpoint.
Intent-to-treat Population; Responder = patient who had ≥ 3 CSBMs and an increase of ≥ 1 CSBM from baseline, in the same week, for at least 9 of the 12 treatment-period weeks. Note: Primary endpoint for linaclotide 145 μg vs. placebo; secondary endpoint for linaclotide 290 μg vs. placebo. CSBM = complete spontaneous bowel movement; ITT = intent to treat; Lin = linaclotide; n = number of patients meeting the responder endpoint; N = number of patients in the ITT population. * P

Fig 3. Percent Change from Baseline in…

Fig 3. Percent Change from Baseline in Abdominal Bloating by Week.

Intent-to-treat Population; % change…

Fig 3. Percent Change from Baseline in Abdominal Bloating by Week.
Intent-to-treat Population; % change from baseline in abdominal bloating during each week of the treatment period. % changes from baseline are the least-squares means from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. Note: % change from baseline in abdominal bloating at each treatment period week was an additional endpoint for both linaclotide dose groups vs. placebo. Both linaclotide doses are associated with greater improvement than placebo at all individual treatment weeks (all reported individual P values < 0.05 for both linaclotide groups vs. placebo; P values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and geographic region as factors and baseline abdominal bloating score as a covariate).

Fig 4. Incremental Percent Improvement in Abdominal…

Fig 4. Incremental Percent Improvement in Abdominal Bloating at Week 12.

Intent-to-treat Population; % improvement…

Fig 4. Incremental Percent Improvement in Abdominal Bloating at Week 12.
Intent-to-treat Population; % improvement in abdominal bloating at week 12 (end of the treatment period). Note: The distribution of % improvement in abdominal bloating at week 12 was a secondary endpoint for both linaclotide dose groups. (P < 0.01 for both linaclotide groups vs. placebo; P values were obtained from a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for equality of distribution.)
Fig 3. Percent Change from Baseline in…
Fig 3. Percent Change from Baseline in Abdominal Bloating by Week.
Intent-to-treat Population; % change from baseline in abdominal bloating during each week of the treatment period. % changes from baseline are the least-squares means from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. Note: % change from baseline in abdominal bloating at each treatment period week was an additional endpoint for both linaclotide dose groups vs. placebo. Both linaclotide doses are associated with greater improvement than placebo at all individual treatment weeks (all reported individual P values < 0.05 for both linaclotide groups vs. placebo; P values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and geographic region as factors and baseline abdominal bloating score as a covariate).
Fig 4. Incremental Percent Improvement in Abdominal…
Fig 4. Incremental Percent Improvement in Abdominal Bloating at Week 12.
Intent-to-treat Population; % improvement in abdominal bloating at week 12 (end of the treatment period). Note: The distribution of % improvement in abdominal bloating at week 12 was a secondary endpoint for both linaclotide dose groups. (P < 0.01 for both linaclotide groups vs. placebo; P values were obtained from a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for equality of distribution.)

References

    1. Higgins PD, Johanson JF. Epidemiology of constipation in North America: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99(4):750–9.
    1. Sandler RS, Drossman DA. Bowel habits in young adults not seeking health care. Dig Dis Sci 1987;32(8):841–5.
    1. Koch A, Voderholzer WA, Klauser AG, Muller-Lissner S. Symptoms in chronic constipation. Dis Colon Rectum 1997;40(8):902–6.
    1. Johanson JF, Kralstein J. Chronic constipation: a survey of the patient perspective. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007;25(5):599–608.
    1. Lacy BE, Gabbard SL, Crowell MD. Pathophysiology, evaluation, and treatment of bloating: hope, hype, or hot air? Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;7(11):729–39.
    1. Houghton LA. Bloating in constipation: Relevance of intraluminal gas handling. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2011;25:141–50. 10.1016/j.bpg.2010.12.009
    1. Jiang X, Locke GR, Choung RS, Zinsmeister AR, Schleck CD, Talley NJ. Prevalence and risk factors for abdominal bloating and visible distention: a population-based study. Gut 2008;57:756–63. 10.1136/gut.2007.142810
    1. Seo AY, Kim N, Oh DH. Abdominal bloating: Pathophysiology and treatment. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2013;19:433–53. 10.5056/jnm.2013.19.4.433
    1. Villoria A, Azpiroz F, Burri E, Cisternas D, Soldevilla A, Malagelada JR. Abdomino-phrenic dyssynergia in patients with abdominal bloating and distension. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:815–9. 10.1038/ajg.2010.408
    1. Gudsoorkar VS, Quigley EM. Emerging treatments for chronic constipation. Expert Opin Emerg Drugs 2013;18:365–73. 10.1517/14728214.2013.831068
    1. Singh S, Rao SS. Pharmacologic management of chronic constipation. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2010;39:509–27. 10.1016/j.gtc.2010.08.001
    1. Bryant AP, Busby RW, Bartolini WP, Cordero EA, Hannig G, Kessler MM, et al. Linaclotide is a potent and selective guanylate cyclase C agonist that elicits pharmacological effects locally in the gastrointestinal tract. Life Sci 2010;86:760–5. 10.1016/j.lfs.2010.03.015
    1. Busby RW, Bryant AP, Bartolini WP, Cordero EA, Hannig G, Kessler MM, et al. Linaclotide, through activation of guanylate cyclase C, acts locally in the gastrointestinal tract to elicit enhanced intestinal secretion and transit. Eur J Pharmacol 2010;649:328–35. 10.1016/j.ejphar.2010.09.019
    1. Busby RW, Kessler MM, Bartolini WP, Bryant AP, Hannig G, Higgins CS, et al. Pharmacological properties, metabolism and disposition of linaclotide, a novel therapeutic peptide approved for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with constipation and chronic idiopathic constipation. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2013;344:196–206. 10.1124/jpet.112.199430
    1. Castro J, Harrington AM, Hughes PA, Martin CM, Ge P, Shea CM, et al. Linaclotide inhibits colonic nociceptors and relieves abdominal pain via guanylate cyclase-C and extracellular cyclic GMP. Gastroenterology 2013;145(6):1334–46. 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.08.017
    1. Eutamene H, Bradesi S, Larauche M, Theodorou V, Beaufrand C, Ohning G, et al. Guanylate cyclase C-mediated antinociceptive effects of linaclotide in rodent models of visceral pain. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2010;22(3):312–22. 10.1111/j.1365-2982.2009.01385.x
    1. Silos-Santiago I, Hannig G, Eutamene H, Ustinova EE, Bernier SG, Ge P, et al. Gastrointestinal pain: Unraveling a novel endogenous pathway through uroguanylin/guanylate cyclase-C/cGMP activation. Pain 2013;154:1820–30.
    1. Lembo AJ, Schneier HA, Shiff SJ, Kurtz CB, Macdougall JE, Jia XD, et al. Two randomized trials of linaclotide for chronic constipation. N Engl J Med 2011. August 11;365(6):527–36. 10.1056/NEJMoa1010863
    1. Drossman DA, Corazziari E, Talley NJ, Thompson CA, Whitehead WE. Rome II: a multinational consensus document on functional gastrointestinal disorders. 45 ed McLean, VA: Degnon Associates; 1999.
    1. Drossman DA, Corazziari E, Talley NJ, Thompson WG, Whitehead WE. Chapter 7: Functional Bowel Disorders and Functional Abdominal Pain. ROME II: The Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders 2000;360–91.
    1. Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, Bond J, Burt R, Ferrucci J, et al. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 2003;124(2):544–60.
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry: irritable bowel syndrome—clinical evaluation of drugs for treatment. 2012. Available:
    1. Agrawal A, Houghton LA, Lea R, Morris J, Reilly B, Whorwell PJ. Bloating and distention in irritable bowel syndrome: the role of visceral sensation. Gastroenterology 2008;134:1882–9. 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.02.096
    1. Murray K, Wilkinson-Smith V, Hoad C, Costigan C, Cox E, Lam C, et al. Differential effects of FODMAPs (fermentable oligo-, di-, mono-saccharides and polyols) on small and large intestinal contents in healthy subjects shown by MRI. Am J Gastroenterol 2014;109:110–9. 10.1038/ajg.2013.386
    1. Tremolaterra F, Villoria A, Azpiroz F, Serra J, Aguadé S, Malagelada JR. Impaired viscerosomatic reflexes and abdominal-wall dystony associated with bloating. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1062–8.
    1. Shekhar C, Monaghan PJ, Morris J, Issa B, Whorwell PJ, Keevil B, et al. Rome III Functional constipation and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation are similar disorders within a spectrum of sensitization, regulated by serotonin. Gastroenterology 2013;145(4):749–57. 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.07.014
    1. Chang L, Lembo A, Sultan S. American gastroenterological association institute technical review on the pharmacological management of irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 2014;147:1149–72. 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.09.002
    1. Rey E, Balboa A, Mearin F. Chronic constipation, irritable bowel syndrome with constipation and constipation with pain/discomfort: similarities and differences. Am J Gastroenterol 2014.
    1. Wong RK, Palsson OS, Turner MJ, Levy RL, Feld AD, von KM, et al. Inability of the Rome III criteria to distinguish functional constipation from constipation-subtype irritable bowel syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:2228–34. 10.1038/ajg.2010.200
    1. Chey WD, Lembo AJ, Lavins BJ, Shiff SJ, Kurtz CB, Currie MG, et al. Linaclotide for irritable bowel syndrome with constipation: a 26-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate efficacy and safety. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:1702–12.
    1. Rao S, Lembo AJ, Shiff SJ, Lavins BJ, Currie MG, Jia XD, et al. A 12-week, randomized, controlled trial with a 4-week randomized withdrawal period to evaluate the efficacy and safety of linaclotide in irritable bowel syndrome with constipation. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:1714–25.
    1. Farrar JT, Young JP, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 2001;94:149–58.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever