Dataset Information

Sensory Adaptation Training or Escitalopram for IBS With Constipation and Rectal Hypersensitivity: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Rectal hypersensitivity is an important pathophysiological dysfunction in irritable bowel syndrome with predominant constipation (IBS-C), whose treatment remains challenging. In a randomized controlled trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of a novel sensori-behavioral treatment, sensory adaptation training (SAT) with escitalopram.

Methods

Patients with IBS-C (Rome III) with rectal hypersensitivity received 6 biweekly sessions of SAT or escitalopram 10 mg daily for 3 months. SAT was performed by repetitive gradual distension of 10-cm long highly compliant rectal balloon above tolerability thresholds using barostat. Treatment effects on sensory thresholds and symptoms were compared. Coprimary outcome measures were those achieving improvements in rectal hypersensitivity (≥20% increase in ≥2/3 sensory thresholds) and pain (≥30% decrease).

Results

We randomized 49 patients; 26 received SAT and 23 escitalopram. SAT significantly improved desire to defecate (Δ 13.5 ± 2.3 vs 2.2 ± 1.1 mm Hg, P = 0.0006) and maximum tolerability (Δ 14.8 ± 1.9 vs 1.6 ± 0.9 mm Hg, P < 0.0001) thresholds compared with escitalopram. There were significantly greater percentage of hypersensitivity responders with SAT than escitalopram (69% vs 17%, P < 0.001), but not pain responders (58% vs 44%, P = 0.4). Daily pain scores did not differ between groups (P = 0.8) or escitalopram (P = 0.06) but decreased with SAT (P = 0.0046) compared with baseline. SAT significantly increased rectal compliance (P < 0.019) and complete spontaneous bowel movements per week than escitalopram (P = 0.04). Five withdrew from adverse events with escitalopram and none with SAT.

Discussion

SAT was significantly more efficacious in improving hypersensitivity and bowel symptoms in IBS-C than escitalopram. SAT is a promising novel treatment for IBS with rectal hypersensitivity.

SUBMITTER: Rao SSC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8280059 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextGeneralized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common psychiatric disorders in older adults; however, few data exist to guide clinicians in efficacious and safe treatment. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are efficacious for younger adults with GAD, but benefits and risks may be different in older adults.ObjectiveTo examine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the SSRI escitalopram in older adults with GAD.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized controlled trial in primary care practices and related specialty clinics in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, of 177 participants aged 60 years or older with a principal diagnosis of GAD randomized to receive either escitalopram or placebo and conducted between January 2005 and January 2008.InterventionsTwelve weeks of 10 to 20 mg/d of escitalopram (n = 85) or matching placebo (n = 92).Main outcome measuresCumulative response defined by Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement score of much or very much improved; time to response; and anxiety and role functioning changes measured by the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Penn State Worry Questionnaire, Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument activity limitations subscale, and the role-emotional impairment and social function subscales of the Medical Outcome Survey 36-item Short Form.ResultsIn the primary analytic strategy in which participants (n = 33) were censored at the time of dropout, mean cumulative response rate for escitalopram was 69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58%-80%) vs 51% (95% CI, 40%-62%) for placebo (P = .03). A conservative intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference in mean cumulative response rate between escitalopram and placebo (57%; 95% CI, 46%-67%; vs 45%; 95% CI, 35%-55%; P = .11). Participants treated with escitalopram showed greater improvement than with placebo in anxiety symptoms and role functioning (Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale: effect size, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.50-1.36; P < .001; Penn State Worry Questionnaire: 0.30; 95% CI, 0.23-0.48; P = .01; activity limitations: 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01-0.63; P = .04; and the role-emotional impairment and social function: 0.96; 95% CI, 0.03-1.90; P = .04). Adverse effects of escitalopram (P < .05 vs placebo) were fatigue or somnolence (35 patients [41.1%]), sleep disturbance (12 [14.1%]), and urinary symptoms (8 [9.4%]).ConclusionsOlder adults with GAD randomized to escitalopram had a higher cumulative response rate for improvement vs placebo over 12 weeks; however, response rates were not significantly different using an intention-to-treat analysis. Further study is required to assess efficacy and safety over longer treatment durations.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00105586.

Project description:BackgroundA small literature suggests that pharmacotherapy may be useful in the prophylaxis of posttraumatic stress disorder in patients presenting with major trauma. There is relatively little data, however, on the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in this context.Methods24 week, double-blind placebo controlled study. 31 participants presenting immediately after trauma, and meeting diagnostic criteria for full or partial acute stress disorder were randomized to treatment with 10-20 mg of escitalopram or placebo daily for 24 weeks. 2 participants were excluded from the analysis due to early drop out, leaving 29 participants (escitalopram = 12, placebo = 17) for inclusion in an intent- to- treat analysis. Participants were followed up until 56 weeks, and assessed with the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS). A mixed model repeated measures analysis of variance (RMANOVA) was undertaken to determine the efficacy of the intervention on the CAPS score.ResultsThere was a significant reduction in CAPS score over the course of treatment (F(7, 142) = 41. 58, p < 0.001) in both the escitalopram and placebo groups, with a greater reduction in CAPS score in the placebo group F(7, 142) = 2.12, p = 0.045. There were improvements on all secondary measures, including the Clinical Global Impressions scale, and scales assessing depression, anxiety and disability. Only functional disability outcomes (F(7, 141) = 2.13, p = .04), were significantly different between treatment and placebo groups. In the sample as a whole, improvement in scores were maintained at the 52 week follow-up. Side effects were comparable between the groups.ConclusionsThese data are consistent with other recent work indicating that the SSRIs may not be efficacious in the prevention of PTSD. Nevertheless, the small sample size and baseline differences between groups limit the explanatory power of the study. Although a consideration of the possibility of medication prophylaxis in PTSD remains important, both from conceptual and clinical perspectives, caution is needed with regards to the use of SSRIs until their efficacy can be proven.Trial registrationClinical Trials NCT00300313.

Project description:Background & aimsAntidepressants are frequently prescribed to treat functional dyspepsia (FD), a common disorder characterized by upper abdominal symptoms, including discomfort or postprandial fullness. However, there is little evidence of the efficacy of these drugs in patients with FD. We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the effects of antidepressant therapy on symptoms, gastric emptying (GE), and meal-induced satiety in patients with FD.MethodsWe performed a study at 8 North American sites of patients who met the Rome II criteria for FD and did not have depression or use antidepressants. Patients (n = 292; 44 ± 15 years old, 75% were female, 70% with dysmotility-like FD, and 30% with ulcer-like FD) were randomly assigned to groups given placebo, 50 mg amitriptyline, or 10 mg escitalopram for 10 weeks. The primary end point was adequate relief of FD symptoms for ≥5 weeks of the last 10 weeks (of 12). Secondary end points included GE time, maximum tolerated volume in Nutrient Drink Test, and FD-related quality of life.ResultsAn adequate relief response was reported by 39 subjects given placebo (40%), 51 given amitriptyline (53%), and 37 given escitalopram (38%) (P = .05, after treatment, adjusted for baseline balancing factors including all subjects). Subjects with ulcer-like FD given amitriptyline were >3-fold more likely to report adequate relief than those given placebo (odds ratio = 3.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-9.0). Neither amitriptyline nor escitalopram appeared to affect GE or meal-induced satiety after the 10-week period in any group. Subjects with delayed GE were less likely to report adequate relief than subjects with normal GE (odds ratio = 0.4; 95% confidence interval: 0.2-0.8). Both antidepressants improved overall quality of life.ConclusionsAmitriptyline, but not escitalopram, appears to benefit some patients with FD, particularly those with ulcer-like (painful) FD. Patients with delayed GE do not respond to these drugs. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00248651.