Efficacy and Safety of Over-the-Counter Therapies for Chronic Constipation: An Updated Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Constipation is commonly treated with over-the-counter (OTC) products whose efficacy and safety remain unclear. We performed a systematic review of OTC therapies for chronic constipation and provide evidence-based recommendations.Methods
We searched PubMed and Embase for randomized controlled trials of ≥4-week duration that evaluated OTC preparations between 2004 and 2020. Studies were scored using the US Preventive Services Task Force criteria (0-5 scale) including randomization, blinding, and withdrawals. The strengths of evidence were adjudicated within each therapeutic category, and recommendations were graded (A, B, C, D, and I) based on the level of evidence (level I, good; II, fair; or III, poor).Results
Of 1,297 studies identified, 41 met the inclusion criteria. There was good evidence (grade A recommendation) for the use of the osmotic laxative polyethylene glycol (PEG) and the stimulant senna; moderate evidence (grade B) for psyllium, SupraFiber, magnesium salts, stimulants (bisacodyl and sodium picosulfate), fruit-based laxatives (kiwi, mango, prunes, and ficus), and yogurt with galacto-oligosaccharide/prunes/linseed oil; and insufficient evidence (grade I) for polydextrose, inulin, and fructo-oligosaccharide. Diarrhea, nausea, bloating, and abdominal pain were common adverse events, but no serious adverse events were reported.Discussion
The spectrum of OTC products has increased and quality of evidence has improved, but methodological issues including variability in study design, primary outcome measures, trial duration, and small sample sizes remain. We found good evidence to recommend polyethylene glycol or senna as first-line laxatives and moderate evidence supporting fiber supplements, fruits, stimulant laxatives, and magnesium-based products. For others, further validation with more rigorously designed studies is warranted.
SUBMITTER: Rao SSC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8191753 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionChronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a prevalent functional gastrointestinal disorder diagnosed based on patient-reported symptoms and the absence of structural gastrointestinal abnormalities. Individuals with CIC typically institute dietary changes and use stool softeners or over-the-counter (OTC) laxatives, possibly at the direction of a healthcare provider, before prescription medications for CIC are initiated. Although highly prevalent, there is limited information regarding CIC patient experiences with OTC medications.MethodsThis post-hoc analysis used patient-reported data from a questionnaire administered during patient screening for a prospective linaclotide Phase 3b clinical trial in patients with CIC (N = 1482 screened). The questionnaire asked patients to report their experiences with OTC CIC medications over the preceding 6 months.ResultsAmong patients with screening responses (N = 1423), most were female (85%) and white (66%), with a mean age of 48.9 years. A high proportion of patients had used one or more OTC medications (70% had ≥1 OTC; 19% had ≥3 OTCs), with the majority being bisacodyl (33%) and polyethylene glycol (30%). The most commonly cited reason for stopping an OTC medication was insufficient symptom relief (17-40%). The majority of patients taking OTC medications reported no or little satisfaction with the medication's effect on their constipation (62%) and CIC-specific abdominal symptoms (78%). Many patients had little to no confidence in bowel movement (BM) frequency after taking OTC medications and their confidence in their ability to predict BM timing was also low (49-81% not at all confident).ConclusionsTreatment effects on individual CIC symptoms, predictability of bowel habits, and satisfaction with treatment are all important factors for healthcare providers and patients to consider when establishing an effective treatment regimen for CIC.Trial registration numberNCT01642914.
| S-EPMC7799845 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction Functional constipation (FC) is a common digestive system disease, with an uptrend in morbidity and mortality, resulting in huge social and economic losses. Although the guidelines recommend lifestyle intervention as a first-line treatment, lifestyle intervention is not widely used in clinic. Inulin can be used as the basic material of functional food. Clinical studies have shown that inulin supplementation is associated with increased frequency of bowel movements, but has certain side effects. Therefore, the efficacy and safety of inulin in the treatment of FC need to be further evaluated. Methods and analysis We will search Medline, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Wanfang Database and China Biomedical Literature Database. We will also search the China Clinical Trial Registry, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and related conference summaries. This systematic review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RevMan V.5.3.5 will be used for analysis. Ethics and dissemination This systematic review will evaluate the efficacy and safety of inulin supplementation for the treatment of FC. All included data will be obtained from published articles, there is no need for the ethical approval, and it will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Due to lack of a new systematic review in this field, this study will combine relevant randomised controlled trials to better explore the evidence of inulin supplementation in the treatment of FC and guide clinical practice and clinical research. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020189234.
| S-EPMC8039257 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chronic wounds impose a substantial economic burden on healthcare systems and result in decreased productivity. Honey possesses diverse properties, rendering it a promising, cost-effective, and efficacious intervention strategy for the management of chronic wounds. However, the findings are controversial. We have presented an updated and comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of honey dressings in the management of chronic wounds. Nine electronic databases were systematically searched to identify relevant studies published prior to 22 March 2024. A total of eight studies, including 906 individuals that met the inclusion criteria, were incorporated. The findings demonstrated a significant acceleration in wound healing time with honey dressings (MD = -17.13, 95% CI -26.37 to -7.89, p = 0.0003) and an increase in the percentage of wound healing (MD = 18.31, 95% CI 8.86 to 27.76, p = 0.0001). No statistically significant differences were observed in the healing rate (RR = 2.00, 95% CI 0.78 to 5.10, p = 0.15), clearance time of bacteria (MD = -11.36, 95% CI: -25.91 to 3.18, p = 0.13) and hospital stay duration. Honey may decrease the VAS score but may increase the incidence of painful discomfort during treatment. The topical application of honey is an effective therapeutic approach for managing chronic wounds, but the quality of the evidence was very low due to the quality of risk of bias, inconsistency, and publication bias, highlighting the necessity for larger-scale studies with adequately powered RCTs to ensure the safety and efficacy of honey dressings in chronic wound healing.
| S-EPMC11314015 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivePost-stroke constipation (PSC) is a common complication of strokes that seriously affects the recovery and quality of life of patients, and effective treatments are needed. Acupuncture is a viable treatment option, but current evidence is insufficient to support its efficacy and safety. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture in the treatment of PSC.MethodsA systematic search of eight databases was conducted to identify PSC-related randomized clinical trials from the inception of each database through May 2023. Methodological quality assessment was conducted by RoB 2.0, meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.1, and evidence quality was evaluated by GRADE. Moreover, reporting quality of acupuncture interventions was assessed using the Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA).ResultsThirty RCTs involving 2,220 patients were identified. We found that acupuncture was superior to conventional treatment (CT) in improving total responder rate [risk ratio (RR): 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09 to 1.25, p < 0.0001], decreasing constipation symptom scores [standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.65, 95% CI: -0.83 to -0.46, p < 0.00001], increasing serum P substance (SP) levels (SMD: 1.92, 95% CI: 0.47 to 3.36, p = 0.009), reducing the time to first bowel movement (BM) (SMD: -1.19, 95% CI: -2.13 to -0.25, p = 0.01), and lowing serum vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) levels (SMD: -2.11, 95% CI: -3.83 to -0.38, p = 0.02). Furthermore, acupuncture plus CT was superior regarding total responder rate (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.35, p < 0.00001), serum SP levels (SMD: 2.00, 95% CI: 1.65-2.35, p < 0.00001), time to first BM (SMD: -2.08, 95% CI: -2.44 to -1.71, p < 0.00001), and serum VIP levels (SMD: -1.71, 95% CI: -2.24 to -1.18, p < 0.00001). However, regarding Bristol Stool Scale (BSS) score, acupuncture plus CT was superior to CT (SMD: -2.48, 95% CI: -3.22 to -1.73, p < 0.00001), while there was no statistically significant difference between acupuncture and CT (SMD: 0.28, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.58, p = 0.07). Acupuncture causes fewer AEs than CT (RR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.26, p < 0.00001), though there was no statistically significant difference between acupuncture plus CT vs. CT (RR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.60 to 2.84, p = 0.51).ConclusionAcupuncture may be an effective and safe therapy for PSC. However, given the inferior quality of clinical data, additional well-designed RCTs are required to confirm these findings.
| S-EPMC10562632 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Few randomized clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of ginseng in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The current meta-analysis evaluated the ginseng-induced improvement in glucose control and insulin sensitivity in patients with type-2 diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance.Randomized clinical trials comparing ginseng supplementation versus control, in patients with T2DM or impaired glucose tolerance, were hand-searched from Medline, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases by 2 independent reviewers using the terms "type 2 diabetes/diabetes/diabetic, impaired glucose tolerance, and ginseng/ginsenoside(s)." The primary outcome analyzed was the change in HbA1c, whereas the secondary outcomes included fasting glucose, postprandial glucose, fasting insulin, postprandial insulin, insulin resistance Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), triglycerides, total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein (LDL), and high density lipoprotein (HDL).Of the 141 studies identified, 8 studies were chosen for the current meta-analysis. The average number of patients, age, and sex distribution among the groups were comparable. Results reveal no significant difference in HbA1c levels between the ginseng supplementation and the control groups (pooled standardized difference in means?=?-0.148, 95% CI: -0.637 to 0.228, P?=?0.355). Ginseng supplementation improved fasting glucose, postprandial insulin, and HOMA-IR levels, though no difference in postprandial glucose or fasting insulin was observed among the groups. Similarly, triglycerides, total cholesterol, and LDL levels showed significant difference between the treatment groups, while no difference in HDL was seen. In addition, ginseng-related therapy was ineffective in decreasing the fasting glucose levels in patients treated with oral hypoglycemic agents or insulin.The present results establish the benefit of ginseng supplementation in improving glucose control and insulin sensitivity in patients with T2DM or impaired glucose intolerance.
| S-EPMC4753873 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThere is significant controversy relating to whether chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) can be treated with pulmonary arterial hypertension- (PAH-) targeted therapies and which therapy is the optimal choice for patients. A large number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared PAH-targeted therapies with placebo or conventional therapies. In this study, we aimed to compare all of the PAH-targeted medications that are used to treat CTEPH and rank their efficacy by the application of network meta-analysis (NMA).MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register, https://clinicaltrials.gov, and who.int/trialsearch/, for relevant RCTs published up to January 2020. In addition to traditional meta-analysis, we also performed NMA in our systematic review, as deployed in a previous protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42020173765).ResultsOur study identified eight eligible RCTs that evaluated seven PAH-targeted therapies in 703 patients with CTEPH. NMA revealed that riociguat was ranked first as the most optimized therapy for ameliorating the 6-minute walk distance with a probability of 80.4%. Bosentan was significantly better than others with regard to reducing brain natriuretic peptide/N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide with a probability of 84.3%. Sildenafil was identified as the best drug in terms of improving the New York Heart Association/World Health Organization functional class with a probability of 87.3%. Treprostinil and macitentan were more beneficial than other drugs in reducing pulmonary vascular resistance and lowering the incidence of clinical worsening with probabilities of 86.2% and 79.2%, respectively.ConclusionAnalysis revealed positive advantages for the use of PAH-targeted drugs in patients with CTEPH. Overall, treprostinil and riociguat were superior to all other PAH-targeted medications in most of the outcomes investigated.
| S-EPMC8426079 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Microplastic particles are used as ingredients in personal care products such as face washes, shower gels and toothpastes and form one of the main sources of microplastic pollution, especially in the marine environment. In addition to being a potential pollutant to the environment, the transfer of microplastics to humans can become a severe threat to public health. This systematic review was conceptualized to identify evidence for the presence of and characteristics of microplastics in toothpaste formulations. Methods: The PICOS Criteria was used for including studies for the review. Electronic databases of Scopus, Embase, Springer Link, PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched, as well as hand and reference searching of the articles was carried out. The articles were screened using the software application, Covidence® and data was extracted. Results: This systematic review showed that toothpastes from China, Vietnam, Myanmar and the UAE, reported no evidence of microplastics and those from Malaysia, Turkey and India reported the presence of microplastics. The shape of the microplastics present in these toothpastes were found to be granular, irregular with opaque appearance and also in the form of fragments and fibers and the percentage weight in grams ranged from 0.2 to 7.24%. Malaysia releases 0.199 trillion microbeads annually from personal care products into the environment and toothpastes in Turkey release an average of 871 million grams of microplastics annually. Similarly, in India, it has been reported that 1.4 billion grams of microplastic particles are emitted annually from toothpaste. Conclusions: The findings of this systematic review provide evidence that toothpastes, at least in some parts of the world, do contain microplastics and that there is a great risk of increase in the addition of microplastics to the environment by the use of toothpaste.
| S-EPMC10372460 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesise evidence around over-the-counter (OTC) emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) to expand the evidence base on self-care interventions.DesignSystematic review (PROSPERO# CRD42021231625).Eligibility criteriaWe included publications comparing OTC or pharmacy-access ECP with prescription-only ECPs and measuring ECP uptake, correct use, unintended pregnancy, abortion, sexual practices/behaviour, self-efficacy and side-effects/harms. We also reviewed studies assessing values/preferences and costs of OTC ECPs.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, CINAL, LILACS, EMBASE, clinicaltrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, Cochrane Fertility Regulation and International Consortium for Emergency Contraception through 2 December 2020.Risk of biasFor trials, we used Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias; for other studies, we used the Evidence Project risk of bias tool.Data extraction and synthesisWe summarised data in duplicate using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence Profile tables, reporting findings by study design and outcome. We qualitatively synthesised values/preferences and cost data.ResultsWe included 19 studies evaluating effectiveness of OTC ECP, 56 on values/preferences and 3 on costs. All studies except one were from high-income and middle-income settings. Broadly, there were no differences in overall ECP use, pregnancy or sexual behaviour, but an increase in timely ECP use, when comparing OTC or pharmacy ECP to prescription-only ECP groups. Studies showed similar/lower abortion rates in areas with pharmacy availability of ECPs. Users and providers generally supported OTC ECPs; decisions for use were influenced by privacy/confidentiality, convenience, and cost. Three modelling studies found pharmacy-access ECPs would lower health sector costs.ConclusionOTC ECPs are feasible and acceptable. They may increase access to and timely use of effective contraception. Existing evidence suggests OTC ECPs do not substantively change reproductive health outcomes. Future studies should examine OTC ECP's impacts on user costs, among key subgroups and in low-resource settings.
| S-EPMC8921871 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe long-term insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) fails to achieve optimal glycemic control and avoid adverse events simultaneously. Stem cells have unique immunomodulatory capacities and have been considered as a promising interventional strategy for T1DM. Stem cell therapy in T1DM has been tried in many studies. However, the results were controversial. We thus performed a meta-analysis to update the efficacy and safety of stem cell therapy in patients with T1DM.MethodsWe systematically searched the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Web of Science, Wan Fang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (SinoMed) for relevant studies published before March 19, 2019. The outcomes included parameters for glycemic control (i.e., glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels and insulin dosages), β cell function (i.e., fasting C-peptide levels and area-under-curve of C-peptide concentration (AUCC)), and relative risk of adverse events. Statistical analysis was conducted by using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0.ResultsFive randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight nonrandomized concurrent control trials (NRCCTs) with a total of 396 individuals were finally included into the meta-analysis. Among RCTs, stem cell therapy could significantly reduce HbA1c levels (MD = -1.20, 95% CI -1.91 to -0.49, P = 0.0009) and increase fasting C-peptide levels (MD = 0.25, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.45, P = 0.02) and AUCC (SMD = 0.66, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.18, P = 0.01). Stem cell therapy could also reduce insulin dosages (SMD = -2.65, 95% CI -4.86 to -0.45, P = 0.02) at 6 months after treatment. NRCCTs also had consistent results. Furthermore, RCTs showed stem cell therapy did not increase relative risk of gastrointestinal symptom (RR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.28, P = 0.64) and infection (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.34, P = 0.95). However, NRCCTs showed stem cell therapy increased relative risk of gastrointestinal symptom (RR = 44.49, 95% CI 9.20 to 215.18, P < 0.00001).ConclusionStem cell therapy for T1DM may improve glycemic control and β cell function without increasing the risk of serious adverse events. Stem cell therapy may also have a short-term (3-6 months) effect on reducing insulin dosages.
| S-EPMC7569432 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Linaclotide and plecanatide are guanylate cyclase-C (GCC) agonists for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C). Our objective is to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of GCC agonists based on data from multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS:We searched PubMED, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, clinicaltrials.gov, major conference abstracts, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites, and United States Securities and Exchange Commission filings of drug sponsors to identify RCTs of CIC or IBS-C patients. We assessed efficacy based on FDA-approved composite responder endpoints, diarrhea as an adverse event, and study withdrawal owing to diarrhea for each therapy. Trial results were pooled using DerSimonian and Laird random effects model of meta-analysis and exact logistic regression when appropriate with 95% confidence intervals. Meta-regression was performed to compare outcomes between therapies adjusting for placebo event rate. RESULTS:Eight linaclotide trials (five CIC; three IBS-C) and seven plecanatide trials (four CIC; three IBS-C) evaluating 10,369 patients met inclusion criteria. FDA publications documented that different definitions for diarrhea were used in linaclotide vs. plecanatide trials. Both drugs were efficacious in treating CIC (linaclotide 72??g (Odds ratio (OR)=3.11, 95% CI 1.81-5.34); linaclotide 145??g (OR=3.25, 2.15-4.91); plecanatide 3?mg (OR=1.99, 1.57-2.51)) and IBS-C (linaclotide 290??g (OR=2.43, 1.48-3.98); plecanatide 3?mg (OR=1.87, 1.47-2.38); plecanatide 6?mg (OR=1.92, 1.48-2.48)). Diarrhea occurred in excess of placebo in treating CIC (linaclotide 72??g (OR=3.07, 1.97-4.77); linaclotide 145??g (OR=3.70, 2.69-5.10); plecanatide 3?mg (OR=3.86, 1.83-8.12)) and IBS-C (linaclotide 290??g (OR=8.02, 5.20-12.37); plecanatide 3?mg (OR=5.55, 1.62-19.00); plecanatide 6?mg (OR=4.13, 1.57-10.83)). Based on meta-regression, there were no statistically significant differences between therapies in odds ratios for efficacy, diarrhea, or diarrhea-related study withdrawals. CONCLUSIONS:Both linaclotide and plecanatide demonstrate similar efficacy and tolerability in treating IBS-C and CIC. No differences in odds of diarrhea were seen between linaclotide and plecanatide.
| S-EPMC7213047 | biostudies-literature