MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774272039 · doi:10.1002/mdc3.12577

Linaclotide and Prucalopride for Management of Constipation in Patients with Parkinsonism

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

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders Clinical Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConstipationParkinsonismInternal medicineGastroenterologyCisapridePopulationProgressive supranuclear palsyParkinson's diseaseDisease

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement Disorders Clinical PracticeSame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207