Lubiprostone for Pediatric Functional Constipation: Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Study With Long-term Extension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Pediatric functional constipation (PFC) is a common problem in children that causes distress and presents treatment challenges to health care professionals. We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial (study 1) in patients with PFC (6-17 years of age) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lubiprostone, followed by an open-label extension for those who completed the placebo-controlled phase (study 2). METHODS: Study 1 (NCT02042183) was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week study evaluating the efficacy and safety of lubiprostone 12 μg twice daily (BID) and 24 μg BID. Study 2 (NCT02138136) was a phase 3, long-term, open-label extension of study 1. In both studies, lubiprostone doses were based on patients' weight. Efficacy was assessed solely based on study 1, with a primary endpoint of overall spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) response (increase of ≥1 SBM/wk vs baseline and ≥3 SBMs/wk for ≥9 weeks, including 3 of the final 4 weeks). RESULTS: 606 patients were randomized to treatment (placebo: n = 202; lubiprostone: n = 404) in study 1. No statistically significant difference in overall SBM response rate was observed between the lubiprostone and placebo groups (18.5% vs 14.4%; P = .2245). Both the 12-μg BID and 24-μg BID doses of lubiprostone were well tolerated in the double-blind and extension phases, with a safety profile consistent with that seen in adult studies. CONCLUSIONS: Lubiprostone did not demonstrate statistically significant effectiveness over placebo in children and adolescents with PFC but did demonstrate a safety profile similar to that in adults. (ClinicalTrials.gov: Number: NCT02042183; Number: NCT02138136).
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".