MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2774272039 · doi:10.1002/mdc3.12577

Linaclotide and Prucalopride for Management of Constipation in Patients with Parkinsonism

2017· article· en· W2774272039 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Maria Eliza Freitas, Abdullah Alqaraawi, Anthony E. Lang, Louis W. C. Liu

Notice bibliographique

RevueMovement Disorders Clinical Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Établissements canadiensToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineConstipationParkinsonismInternal medicineGastroenterologyCisapridePopulationProgressive supranuclear palsyParkinson's diseaseDisease

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Constipation is a common condition in patients with neurodegenerative parkinsonism, including Parkinson's disease (PD), multiple system atrophy (MSA), and progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP).1, 2 Multiple mechanisms of pathogenesis have been proposed, such as accumulation of α-synuclein in the gastrointestinal system, dysautonomia, and medication side effects.1 Chronic constipation negatively impacts quality of life and decreases the absorption of antiparkinsonian drugs.3 Conventional management, including adequate fiber and fluid intake and over-the-counter laxatives are generally ineffective.4 Linaclotide (guanylate cyclase C agonist) and prucalopride (selective 5-HT4 receptor agonist) are emerging effective drugs for the management of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC).5, 6 To date, these drugs have not been tested in controlled trials in patients with parkinsonism and therefore their efficacy is unknown in this population. With the approval of a local ethics committee, we searched our patient database for patients diagnosed with neurodegenerative parkinsonism and constipation who had received linaclotide or prucalopride. Constipation was defined by Rome III criteria and one of the symptoms must include fewer than three bowel movements (BM) per week.7 Patients who had undergone previous small or large bowel surgery were excluded, except for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. Demographics, treatment characteristics, BM frequency, and side effects were captured from medical records. Objective improvement was defined as post-treatment BM frequency of three or more per week. Subjective improvement was assessed by clinical or telephone interview, and the patient's satisfaction level was defined as either “agreement” or “strong agreement” with the studied drug treating the constipation symptoms. The results were captured in a five-point Likert scale. Continuous variables were expressed as median (range) or mean ± SD. Wilcoxon signed-rank or Fisher's exact test were used as appropriate. Among the 30 patients identified, 13 received linaclotide only, 11 received prucalopride only, and six individuals used both drugs, but not simultaneously (Table 1). Mean treatment duration with linaclotide (145 or 290 μg) was 10 ± 8 months and with prucalopride (1–4 mg) was 19 ± 18 months. The number of BM per week significantly increased after treatment with either linaclotide (1.5[1–3] vs. 3[2–7]; P < 0.01) or prucalopride (1[1–2] vs. 5[1–7]; P < 0.05). In patients who did not respond to prucalopride, 67% reported improvement after switching to linaclotide. Subjective satisfaction for treating their constipation symptoms was greater for patients who received linaclotide than prucalopride (69% vs. 47%). Proportion of objective and subjective improvement was not significantly different between PD and non-PD patients (Table 1). There was no difference in the use of over-the-counter laxative before starting the treatment in both groups. Side effects were only reported in one patient who discontinued prucalopride due to headache. 24 PD – duration: 13 ± 7 years; UPDRS range: 7–60 6 non-PD parkinsonism: 2 MSA- duration: 4 ± 1 years; 4 PSP – duration: 7 ± 5 years Total: 30 patients (age 67 ± 9 years; 50% female) 6 patients used both medications (linaclotide and prucalopride)* 145 μg: n = 11 290 μg: n = 4 Missing data: n = 4 1 mg: n = 4 2 mg: n = 8 4 mg: n = 2 Missing data: n = 3 Linaclotide and prucalopride are effective, safe and well tolerated in patients with CIC.6 Both drugs improved the BM frequency in our patients with neurodegenerative parkinsonism who had failed initial constipation management. Interestingly, a higher proportion of patients reported subjective satisfaction in controlling their constipation symptoms with the use of linaclotide as compared to prucalopride. Although recall bias and missing data in this retrospective study limit our ability to make a definite recommendation, our preliminary results suggest potential benefits of these medications, and thus we encourage further well-designed controlled trials to advance the standard of care of constipation in patients with parkinsonism. 1. Research Project: A. Conception, B. Organization, C. Execution; 2. Statistical Analysis: A. Design, B. Execution, C. Review and Critique; 3. Manuscript Preparation: A. Writing the First Draft, B. Review and Critique. M.E.F: 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B A.A.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 3B A.E.L.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 2C, 3B L.W.C.L.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 2C, 3B Ethical Compliance Statement: We confirm that we have read the Journal's position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this work is consistent with those guidelines. Funding Sources and Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Financial disclosures from previous 12 months: Maria Eliza Freitas, none; Abdullah Alqaraawi, none; Anthony E. Lang, none; Louis WC Liu, speaker at: AbbVie, Allergan Canada, Covidien/Medtronic; Advisory: AbbVie, Allergan Canada, Lupin Pharma Canada; Consultant: AbbVie, Allergan Canada, Covidien/Medtronic.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,006

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,367
Écart entre enseignants0,341 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations33
Publié2017
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMovement Disorders Clinical PracticeMême sujetGastrointestinal motility and disordersTravaux en français237 207