A237 IMPROVEMENT IN ABDOMINAL SYMPTOMS WITH LINACLOTIDE IN PATIENTS WITH IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME WITH CONSTIPATION: RESULTS FROM A PHASE 3B TRIAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Linaclotide (LIN) is a guanylate cyclase-C agonist approved to treat irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) in adults. Abdominal symptoms are important to patients with IBS-C. In a recent Phase 3b study, LIN significantly improved a composite score of abdominal bloating, pain, and discomfort (Abdominal Score), which was used as the primary endpoint in the study. Aims To evaluate the efficacy of LIN for improving additional efficacy abdominal symptom endpoints in a randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled Phase 3 study of LIN in patients with IBS-C. Methods Adults with IBS-C were randomized to PBO (N=308) or LIN 290 μg (N=306) once daily for 12 weeks. Patients recorded their daily abdominal symptoms, including the individual items of bloating, pain, and discomfort, using an 11-point scale (0–10; 0=none, 10=worst possible). The primary endpoint was the Abdominal Score. Additional efficacy endpoints included 6/12-week abdominal pain and constipation (APC)+1 responder, 6/12-week abdominal bloating responder, 6/12-week abdominal pain responder, and 6/12-week abdominal discomfort responder. For individual symptoms, a responder was a patient who had an improvement from baseline of ≥2 points in the respective endpoint for ≥6 of the 12 weeks. Changes from baseline (CFB) over 12 weeks in abdominal bloating, pain, and discomfort were evaluated using a mixed model with repeated measures framework. Proportions of responders were compared between groups for each responder endpoint using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Results 614 patients (mean age, 46.7 years; 81% female; similar baseline abdominal symptoms) were randomized. LIN-treated patients had greater least-squares mean (LSM) CFB in abdominal bloating (LSM difference [95% CI]: –0.889 [–1.249, –0.530], p<0.001), pain (–0.881 [–1.238, –0.524], p<0.001), and discomfort (–0.837 [–1.196, –0.478], p<0.001) compared to PBO-treated patients. There was a greater proportion of LIN-treated vs. PBO-treated patients who were 6/12-week APC+1 (29% vs. 17%; p=0.0003), bloating (40% vs. 24%; p<0.001), pain (42% vs. 25%; p<0.001), and discomfort (42% vs. 26%; p<0.001) responders (Figure). Diarrhea was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event (LIN: 4.6%; PBO: 1.6%). Conclusions LIN significantly improved multiple abdominal symptom and secondary responder endpoints in patients with IBS-C. These results support the effectiveness of LIN for improving a spectrum of abdominal symptoms in IBS-C. Funding Agencies This study was sponsored by Allergan plc, Dublin, Ireland (prior to acquisition by AbbVie Inc.). Writing and editorial assistance were provided to the authors by Brittany Y. Jarrett, PhD, Jane Beck, MA, and Rebecca Fletcher, BA(Hons) of Complete HealthVizion, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA and funded by Allergan plc (prior to acquisition by AbbVie Inc.).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".