Dataset Information

Capsule and Sprinkle Formulations of Lubiprostone Are Not Biologically Similar in Patients with Functional Constipation.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Lubiprostone capsules are approved for managing three different chronic constipation conditions. A "sprinkle" formulation may facilitate use in individuals with difficulty swallowing capsules. Our objective was to evaluate the bioequivalence, pharmacokinetics (PK), and bioavailability of lubiprostone sprinkles vs lubiprostone capsules, compared with placebo.

Methods

A 1-week randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, bioequivalence study (study 302) and a single-dose PK and bioavailability crossover study (study 304) were conducted. In study 302, 522 subjects with chronic constipation were randomized to lubiprostone sprinkle 24 μg twice daily (BID), lubiprostone capsule 24 μg BID, or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was observed spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) counts (equivalence defined as showing the 90% confidence interval [CI] of the "between-group SBM ratio" to be contained within 0.8-1.25). Study 304 included two cohorts of healthy volunteers randomized to a single 48-μg lubiprostone dose, sprinkle, or capsule (n = 35) or to a single 48-μg sprinkle dose, in fed or fasted state (n = 14).

Results

Both lubiprostone formulations significantly improved SBM count (sprinkle, 4.82 ± 3.66, P = 0.002; capsule, 5.74 ± 3.79, P < 0.0001) vs placebo (3.68 ± 2.16), but equivalent efficacy was not demonstrated, with a 90% CI for the SBM count ratio of 0.69-0.95. Quantifiable PK data on lubiprostone were limited; however, overall exposure to the M3 metabolite was approximately 44% higher with sprinkles vs capsules under fasted conditions (geometric mean ratio 1.441 [90% CI, 1.166, 1.782]), and exposure with the sprinkle formulation was 11% lower in the fed state vs the fasted state (geometric mean ratio 0.888 [90% CI, 0.675, 1.168]). Both formulations were generally well tolerated.

Conclusion

Despite the significant improvement in SBM counts vs placebo, the sprinkle formulation did not demonstrate bioequivalence to the capsule formulation in either pharmacodynamic or PK key parameters.

Trial registration

Study 302: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03097861; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03097861 ; Study 304: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03010631; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03010631 .

SUBMITTER: Adams A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8190023 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTo investigate the efficacy of lubiprostone compared to Senna on bowel symptoms and constipation in post-operative orthopedic patients treated with opioids.MethodsIn this double blind, randomized, active comparator trial, adults who required opioids for analgesia following orthopedic procedures and who were admitted in inpatient rehabilitation were randomized following baseline assessments to lubiprostone (Amitza(®)), orally twice a day or Senna (generic) two capsules administered daily for six days. Subjects were assessed using the patient assessment of constipation (PAC)-symptoms (PAC-SYM) and the PAC-quality of life (PAC-QOL) scales measured at baseline and Day 7; Subjects were assessed daily for secondary measures included the Bristol stool scale bowel consistency, specific bowel symptom score (Nausea, cramping, straining, completeness, abdominal pain, time per lavatory attempt, assistance needed), adverse events and rescue medications required. Function was measured using the functional independence measure (FIM) at admission and discharge; length of stay (LOS) and missed treatments due to gastrointestinal symptoms were also assessed.Results64 adults were enrolled; 56 participants (28 in each group) had baseline and follow up measures and were included in the intention to treat (ITT) analyses. 43 participants completed the study, 21 in the active lubiprostone and 22 in the active Senna group. The mean age of the participants was 71.5 years (SD = 11.4 years, range: 28-96 years). In the ITT analyses, participants showed significant improvement in bowel symptoms as measured by the PAC-SYM (mean ± SD, -0.28 ± 0.60, range: -1-2.33) and PAC-QOL (mean ± SD, 0.33 ± 0.81, range: -1.5-2.0) over time, but there were no significant differences between the lubiprostone and Senna groups in mean change in the PAC-SYM (-0.20 ± 0.60 vs -0.36 ± 0.61, P = 0.61 respectively) or the PAC-QOL (0.29 ± 0.76 vs 0.37 ± 0.87, P = 0.61 respectively). The mean change in each bowel symptom also did not significantly differ between treatment groups on ITT analyses, except for completeness of bowel movement, with the Senna group showing greater negative mean change in bowel movement completeness (-0.56 ± 1.01 vs -2.00 ± 1.41, P = 0.03) and for reduction of abdominal pain, favoring Senna (-0.14 ± 0.73 vs -0.73 ± 1.08, P = 0.04). Fifteen (75%) participants in the lubiprostone and in the Senna group requested rescue treatments. Participants made significant functional improvement from admission to discharge over a median LOS of 12 d, with a mean FIM change of 29.13 ± 13.58 and no significant between group differences (27.0 ± 9.2 vs 31.5 ± 16.6, P = 0.27).ConclusionBoth lubiprostone and Senna improved constipation-related symptoms and QOL in opioid-induced constipation, with no significant between-group differences.

Project description:ObjectivesThis multicenter, phase 3 trial evaluated oral lubiprostone for constipation associated with non-methadone opioids in patients with chronic noncancer-related pain.MethodsAdults with opioid-induced constipation (OIC; <3 spontaneous bowel movements [SBMs] per week) were randomized 1:1 to double-blind lubiprostone 24 μg or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the overall SBM response rate. Responders had at least moderate response (≥1 SBM improvement over baseline frequency) in all treatment weeks with available observed data, as well as full response (≥3 SBMs per week) for at least 9 of the 12 treatment weeks.ResultsIn total, 431 patients were randomized; 212 each received lubiprostone and placebo, and 7 were not treated. Overall, the SBM response rate was significantly higher for patients treated with lubiprostone vs. placebo (27.1 vs. 18.9%, respectively; P=0.030). Overall mean change from baseline in SBM frequency was significantly greater with lubiprostone vs. placebo (3.2 vs. 2.4, respectively; P=0.001). The median time to first SBM was significantly shorter with lubiprostone vs. placebo (23.5 vs. 37.7 h, respectively; P=0.004). Compared with placebo, the patients treated with lubiprostone exhibited significant improvements in straining (P=0.004), stool consistency (P<0.001), and constipation severity (P=0.010). No significant differences were observed in quality-of-life measures or the use of rescue medication; however, the percentage of patients who used rescue medication was consistently lower in the lubiprostone group than in the placebo group at months 1 (34.9 vs. 37.7%), 2 (23.4 vs. 26.6%), and 3 (20.5 vs. 22.0%). Adverse events (AEs) >5% were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain (lubiprostone: 11.3, 9.9, 4.2, and 7.1%, respectively; placebo, 3.8, 4.7, 5.2, and 0%, respectively). None of the serious AEs (lubiprostone, 3.3%; placebo, 2.8%) were related to lubiprostone.ConclusionsLubiprostone significantly improved symptoms of OIC and was well tolerated in patients with chronic noncancer pain.

Project description:BackgroundFunctional constipation (FC) is an intractable disease that carries large financial burden as well as emotional and physical stress. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the newly developed smartphone-controlled vibrating capsule (VC) in patients with FC.MethodsFrom December 2018 to February 2020, we did a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomised trial in six top general hospitals in China focusing on patients aged 18 to 80 with FC. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive VCs or placebo treatment for six weeks (two capsules per week) after a two-week baseline period. The primary outcome was the responder rate, defined as the proportion of patients with an increase of at least one complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) per week during treatment compared to baseline in the full analysis set. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04671264, and is completed.Findings107 patients aged from 18 to 74 were randomly assigned to receive VC (n = 53) or placebo treatment (n = 54). The responder rate in the VC group was significantly higher than that in the placebo group (64·2% vs. 35·8%; difference, 27·7% [95% CI, 10·4-45·1]; P = 0·005). More patients in the VC group reported weekly CSBMs ≥ 1 for at least four weeks during treatment (difference, 22·7% [95% CI, 8-46]; P = 0·022) and follow-up period (difference, 17.3% [95% CI, 0-35]; P = 0·048). The mean Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms score and Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life score differed significantly from the baseline in both groups (all P < 0·0001). The most common adverse event associated with VC was abdominal discomfort (3·7%).InterpretationVCs can promote defecation, as well as ameliorating symptoms and improving the quality of life in patients with FC with sustained efficacy. VC appears to be a potential alternative physical treatment for FC with the exact mechanism and parameters warranting further investigation.FundingThe study was supported by "One hundred leading scientists for 21st century" of Health Department of Shanghai Municipal Government (to ZL, No.2017BR005).