The Safety of Pharmacotherapy for Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 8 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Jonathan A Busam, Nisha Batta, Eric D Shah, LiJin Joo, Caroline Marshall, Ali Rezaie, Mark Pimentel
{"title":"The Safety of Pharmacotherapy for Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Jonathan A Busam, Nisha Batta, Eric D Shah, LiJin Joo, Caroline Marshall, Ali Rezaie, Mark Pimentel","doi":"10.14309/ajg.0000000000003572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Understanding the safety of pharmacotherapy for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) enables individuals to make informed treatment decisions. While many studies include the number needed to treat (NNT) to highlight therapeutic benefits, adding the number needed to harm (NNH), a measure we evaluate herein, could enable more comprehensive risk-benefit assessments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched through October 2024. Clinical trials investigating IBS pharmacotherapies including discontinuation rates due to adverse events (AEs) were included. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was NNH for each pharmacotherapy, defined as the reciprocal of the absolute difference in risk of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation between the experimental and placebo groups. Secondary outcomes included the relative risk of withdrawing due to an AE and the most common AEs for each drug.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>54 trials met inclusion criteria. For IBS-C pharmacotherapies, the NNH for linaclotide, lubiprostone, plecanatide, tegaserod, and tenapanor was 35 (p<0.01), 53 (p=0.59), 59 (p<0.01), 58 (p=0.03), and 16 (p<0.01), respectively. For IBS-D pharmacotherapies, the NNH for alosetron and eluxadoline was 14 (p<0.01) and 32 (p<0.01) while the NNH for both rifaximin and ramosetron was a negative, although statistically insignificant, value. For IBS global symptom pharmacotherapies, the tricyclics, the NNH was 24 (p<0.01). Many AEs were transient without long-term sequela.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among pharmacotherapies for IBS, tricyclics (especially at elevated doses), tenapanor, and alosetron have the highest absolute risk of discontinuation due to an AE when compared to rifaximin, the safest pharmacotherapy studied.</p>","PeriodicalId":7608,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000003572","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Understanding the safety of pharmacotherapy for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) enables individuals to make informed treatment decisions. While many studies include the number needed to treat (NNT) to highlight therapeutic benefits, adding the number needed to harm (NNH), a measure we evaluate herein, could enable more comprehensive risk-benefit assessments.

Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched through October 2024. Clinical trials investigating IBS pharmacotherapies including discontinuation rates due to adverse events (AEs) were included. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was NNH for each pharmacotherapy, defined as the reciprocal of the absolute difference in risk of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation between the experimental and placebo groups. Secondary outcomes included the relative risk of withdrawing due to an AE and the most common AEs for each drug.

Results: 54 trials met inclusion criteria. For IBS-C pharmacotherapies, the NNH for linaclotide, lubiprostone, plecanatide, tegaserod, and tenapanor was 35 (p<0.01), 53 (p=0.59), 59 (p<0.01), 58 (p=0.03), and 16 (p<0.01), respectively. For IBS-D pharmacotherapies, the NNH for alosetron and eluxadoline was 14 (p<0.01) and 32 (p<0.01) while the NNH for both rifaximin and ramosetron was a negative, although statistically insignificant, value. For IBS global symptom pharmacotherapies, the tricyclics, the NNH was 24 (p<0.01). Many AEs were transient without long-term sequela.

Conclusions: Among pharmacotherapies for IBS, tricyclics (especially at elevated doses), tenapanor, and alosetron have the highest absolute risk of discontinuation due to an AE when compared to rifaximin, the safest pharmacotherapy studied.

肠易激综合征药物治疗的安全性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:了解肠易激综合征(IBS)药物治疗的安全性,使个体能够做出明智的治疗决策。虽然许多研究包括治疗所需的数量(NNT)来强调治疗益处,但增加伤害所需的数量(NNH),我们在此评估的一项措施,可以实现更全面的风险-收益评估。方法:检索到2024年10月的PubMed、Web of Science和Cochrane数据库。包括调查IBS药物治疗的临床试验,包括因不良事件(ae)导致的停药率。数据采用随机效应模型汇总。主要结局是每种药物治疗的NNH,定义为实验组和安慰剂组之间导致治疗中断的ae风险绝对差异的倒数。次要结局包括因不良反应而退出的相对风险和每种药物最常见的不良反应。结果:54项试验符合纳入标准。对于IBS- c药物治疗,利那洛肽、鲁比前列石、普莱那肽、替加塞罗德和泰那诺的NNH为35(结论:在IBS药物治疗中,三环类药物(尤其是高剂量)、泰那诺和阿洛司琼与利福昔明相比,因AE而停药的绝对风险最高,利福昔明是研究中最安全的药物治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American Journal of Gastroenterology
American Journal of Gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
5.10%
发文量
458
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Published on behalf of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), The American Journal of Gastroenterology (AJG) stands as the foremost clinical journal in the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology. AJG offers practical and professional support to clinicians addressing the most prevalent gastroenterological disorders in patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信