Sennosides 7.5mg tablets

BackgroundThe rate of adequate cleansing (ACR) and complete examinations (CR) are key quality indicators in capsule colonoscopy (CC) and pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy (PCE).AimsTo evaluate the efficacy of bowel preparation protocols regarding ACR and CR.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, search terms regarding colon capsule preparation, publication date from 2006/01, and date of search 2021/12, in six bibliographic databases. Multiple steps of the cleansing protocol were assessed: diet, adjunctive laxatives, purgative solution, use of prokinetic agents, and "booster". The meta-analytical frequency of ACR and CR was estimated, and subgroup analyses performed. Strategies associated with higher ACR and CR were explored using meta-analytical univariable and multivariable regression models.ResultsTwenty-six observational studies and five RCTs included (n = 4072 patients). The pooled rate of ACR was 72.5% (95% C.I. 67.8-77.5%; I2 = 92.4%), and the pooled rate of CR was 83.0% (95% C.I. 78.7-87.7%; I2 = 96.5%). The highest ACR were obtained using a low-fibre diet [78.5% (95% C.I. 72.0-85.6%); I2 = 57.0%], adjunctive laxatives [74.7% (95% C.I. 69.8-80.1%); I2 = 85.3%], and split dose 2 = 47.3%]. The highest CR were observed using routine prokinetics prior to capsule ingestion [84.4% (95% C.I. 79.9-89.2%); I2 = 89.8%], and sodium phosphate (NaP) as "booster" [86.2% (95% C.I. 82.3-90.2%); I2 = 86.8%]. In univariable models, adjunctive laxatives were associated with higher ACR [OR 1.81 (95% C.I. 1.13; 2.90); p = 0.014]. CR was higher with routine prokinetics [OR 1.86 (95% C.I. 1.13; 3.05); p = 0.015] and split-dose PEG purgative [OR 2.03 (95% C.I. 1.01; 4.09), p = 0.048].ConclusionsMain quality outcomes (ACR, CR) remain suboptimal for CC and PCE. Despite considerable heterogeneity, our results support low-fibre diet, use of adjunctive sennosides, split dose < 4L PEG, and routine prokinetics, while NaP remains the most consistent option as booster.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

BackgroundCancer-related pain often requires opioid treatment with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) as its most frequent gastrointestinal side-effect. Both for prevention and treatment of OIC osmotic (e.g. polyethylene glycol) and stimulant (e.g. bisacodyl) laxatives are widely used. Newer drugs such as the peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) and naloxone in a fixed combination with oxycodone have become available for the management of OIC. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to give an overview of the scientific evidence on pharmacological strategies for the prevention and treatment of OIC in cancer patients.MethodsA systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library was completed from inception up to 22 October 2022. Randomized and non-randomized studies were systematically selected. Bowel function and adverse drug events were assessed.ResultsTwenty trials (prevention: five RCTs and three cohort studies; treatment: ten RCTs and two comparative cohort studies) were included in the review. Regarding the prevention of OIC, three RCTs compared laxatives with other laxatives, finding no clear differences in effectivity of the laxatives used. One cohort study showed a significant benefit of magnesium oxide compared with no laxative. One RCT found a significant benefit for the PAMORA naldemedine compared with magnesium oxide. Preventive use of oxycodone/naloxone did not show a significant difference in two out of three other studies compared to oxycodone or fentanyl. A meta-analysis was not possible. Regarding the treatment of OIC, two RCTs compared laxatives, of which one RCT found that polyethylene glycol was significantly more effective than sennosides. Seven studies compared an opioid antagonist (naloxone, methylnaltrexone or naldemedine) with placebo and three studies compared different dosages of opioid antagonists. These studies with opioid antagonists were used for the meta-analysis. Oxycodone/naloxone showed a significant improvement in Bowel Function Index compared to oxycodone with laxatives (MD -13.68; 95 % CI -18.38 to -8.98; I2 = 58 %). Adverse drug event rates were similar amongst both groups, except for nausea in favour of oxycodone/naloxone (RR 0.51; 95 % CI 0.31-0.83; I2 = 0 %). Naldemedine (NAL) and methylnaltrexone (MNTX) demonstrated significantly higher response rates compared to placebo (NAL: RR 2.07, 95 % CI 1.64-2.61, I2 = 0 %; MNTX: RR 3.83, 95 % CI 2.81-5.22, I2 = 0 %). With regard to adverse events, abdominal pain was more present in treatment with methylnaltrexone and diarrhea was significantly more present in treatment with naldemedine. Different dosages of methylnaltrexone were not significantly different with regard to both efficacy and adverse drug event rates.ConclusionsMagnesium oxide and naldemedine are most likely effective for prevention of OIC in cancer patients. Naloxone in a fixed combination with oxycodone, naldemedine and methylnaltrexone effectively treat OIC in cancer patients with acceptable adverse events. However, their effect has not been compared to standard (osmotic and stimulant) laxatives. More studies comparing standard laxatives with each other and with opioid antagonists are necessary before recommendations for clinical practice can be made.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Abstract Background To the best of our knowledge, the effectiveness and safety of lactulose in comparison to sennosides, for the prevention of peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related peritonitis, has never been tested in a randomized study. Methods We conducted an open-label, randomized, active-controlled trial in a PD-center in Northern Thailand. Adult patients on PD were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio into two groups; one group received lactulose 15 mL once daily (n = 50) and the other group received sennosides two tablets daily (n = 50). The primary outcome was time-to-first bacterial peritonitis. The secondary outcomes included a composite of bacterial peritonitis and all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazards regression was calculated and presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results One hundred PD patients were recruited (50.0% men; mean age 55.5 ± 13.0 years) in this study. The baseline characteristics of the study participants were similar in both groups. No significant trend towards a higher risk of PD-related peritonitis was observed in the lactulose group (HR, 2.32 [95% CI, 0.92–5.83]; p = .051) compared to the sennosides group. Nevertheless, the secondary outcome was significantly higher in the lactulose group (HR, 2.77 [95% CI, 1.20–6.41]; p = .010). The incidence of adverse events was not substantially different between the two groups; however, diarrhoea was more frequent in the lactulose group (38.0% vs. 18.0%; p = .030) than in the sennosides group. Conclusions Treatment with lactulose is not more effective than sennosides and cannot be routinely recommended for the prevention of peritonitis among the PD population. TRIAL REGISTRATION Thai Clinical Trial Registry (clinicaltrials.in.th); ID: TCTR20171012001 KEY MESSAGE To the best of our knowledge, no randomized controlled trial that compares the efficacy and safety profiles of lactulose versus sennosides for the prevention of PD-related peritonitis among the PD population has been conducted. In this open-label, randomized, active-controlled trial, treatment with lactulose is not more effective than sennosides in the prevention of PD-related peritonitis, and it could increase the risk of bacterial PD-related peritonitis. Further studies with a larger sample size by incorporated real-world evidence are needed to confirm our findings and to explore strategies to prevent peritonitis among PD patients.

Abstract licence: CC BY 4.0