Medical Research Wiki

pubmed-abstracts-curated

46 min read

PubMed abstracts — Digest 011 constipation-safe fiber / evacuation

Generated: 2026-06-19

Queries

  • "Two Gold Kiwifruit Daily" constipation psyllium placebo

  • "AGA" "ACG" "chronic idiopathic constipation" guideline 2023 pharmacological management

  • "Therapeutic Potential of the 4-SURE Diet" ulcerative colitis

  • "resistant starch" inflammatory bowel disease systematic review

  • "partially hydrolyzed guar gum" constipation systematic review meta-analysis

  • "Implementation of a Defecation Posture Modification Device"

  • "Comparison of Straining During Defecation in Three Positions"

  • "biofeedback" defecatory disorders constipation randomized trial

Records

PMID 10022641 — Randomized clinical trial of Plantago ovata seeds (dietary fiber) as compared with mesalamine in maintaining remission in ulcerative colitis. Spanish Group for the Study of Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis (GETECCU).

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Butyrate enemas may be effective in the treatment of active distal ulcerative colitis. Because colonic fermentation of Plantago ovata seeds (dietary fiber) yields butyrate, the aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of Plantago ovata seeds as compared with mesalamine in maintaining remission in ulcerative colitis. METHODS: An open label, parallel-group, multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted. A total of 105 patients with ulcerative colitis who were in remission were randomized into groups to receive oral treatment with Plantago ovata seeds (10 g b.i.d.), mesalamine (500 mg t.i.d.), and Plantago ovata seeds plus mesalamine at the same doses. The primary efficacy outcome was maintenance of remission for 12 months. RESULTS: Of the 105 patients, 102 were included in the final analysis. After 12 months, treatment failure rate was 40% (14 of 35 patients) in the Plantago ovata seed group, 35% (13 of 37) in the mesalamine group, and 30% (nine of 30) in the Plantago ovata plus mesalamine group. Probability of continued remission was similar (Mantel-Cox test, p = 0.67; intent-to-treat analysis). Therapy effects remained unchanged after adjusting for potential confounding variables with a Cox’s proportional hazards survival analysis. Three patients were withdrawn because of the development of adverse events consisting of constipation and/or flatulence (Plantago ovata seed group = 1 and Plantago ovata seed plus mesalamine group = 2). A significant increase in fecal butyrate levels (p = 0.018) was observed after Plantago ovata seed administration. CONCLUSIONS: Plantago ovata seeds (dietary fiber) might be as effective as mesalamine to maintain remission in ulcerative colitis.

PMID 12870773 — Comparison of straining during defecation in three positions: results and implications for human health.

Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare the straining forces applied when sitting or squatting during defecation. Twenty-eight apparently healthy volunteers (ages 17-66 years) with normal bowel function were asked to use a digital timer to record the net time needed for sensation of satisfactory emptying while defecating in three alternative positions: sitting on a standard-sized toilet seat (41-42 cm high), sitting on a lower toilet seat (31-32 cm high), and squatting. They were also asked to note their subjective impression of the intensity of the defecation effort. Six consecutive bowel movements were recorded in each position. Both the time needed for sensation of satisfactory bowel emptying and the degree of subjectively assessed straining in the squatting position were reduced sharply in all volunteers compared with both sitting positions (P < 0.0001). In conclusion, the present study confirmed that sensation of satisfactory bowel emptying in sitting defecation posture necessitates excessive expulsive effort compared to the squatting posture.

PMID 18212193 — MR defecography: prospective comparison of two rectal enema compositions.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare intraindividually two rectal enema compositions in MR defecography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients underwent MR defecography twice on a 0.5-T open-configuration system in the sitting position. During the first imaging session, MR defecography was performed with a rectal enema consisting of potato starch mixed with gadolinium (PS group). During the second session, the enema consisted of ultrasound gel mixed with gadolinium (US group). The imaging protocol consisted of midsagittal T1-weighted gradient-recalled echo MR images obtained at rest, at maximal sphincter contraction, at straining, and during defecation. All images were analyzed quantitatively by measuring the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and reviewed by three independent observers with regard to the visibility of pelvic floor abnormalities and the extent of those abnormalities. RESULTS: The CNR values in the PS group (mean +/- SD, 167.49 +/- 44.4) were significantly higher than those obtained in the US group (150.2 +/- 37.8) (p < 0.05). The visibility scores for anterior rectoceles and intussusceptions were higher in the PS group than in the US group (mean visibility scores: PS group, 2.8 +/- 0.42 and 2.6 +/- 0.56, respectively; US group, 2.3 +/- 0.77 and 2.2 +/- 0.74, respectively). The size and the number of incompletely emptying anterior rectoceles were higher in the PS group. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound gel and potato starch provide good contrast and depiction of relevant pelvic floor abnormalities. However, the visibility of pelvic floor abnormalities and extent of those abnormalities depend on the composition of the rectal enema. In particular, the size and degree of anterior rectocele evacuation and intussusception size are often underestimated when ultrasound gel is used for rectal enema.

PMID 21225147 — Is dynamic two-dimensional anal ultrasonography useful in the assessment of anismus? A comparison with manometry.

Abstract

CONTEXT: Anismus is a prevalent functional cause of outlet delay. It is characterized by symptoms of obstructed defecation associated with paradoxical contraction of the pelvic floor muscles. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of two dimensional anal ultrasonography to identify anismus patients with paradoxical contraction or normal relaxation, comparing findings with manometric measurements. METHODS: Forty-nine women presenting with outlet delay and a mean validated Wexner constipation score of 13.5 were included in a prospective study. Following screening with anal manometry, the patients were assigned to one of two groups: G-I -with normal relaxation and G-II -patients with anismus. Dynamic anorectal ultrasonography was used to quantifier the movement of the puborectalis muscle and to measure changes in the angle between two converging lines drawn from the 3 o’clock and the 9 o’clock positions of the endoprobe circumference to the internal border of the puborectalis muscle. The angle decreases during straining in patients with normal relaxation, but increases in patients with anismus. The agreement between the two techniques was verified with the Kappa index. RESULTS: In manometry, during straining the anal canal pressure decreased by 41.3% in G-I and increased by 168.6% in G-II, indicating a diagnosis of anismus for the second group. In US, during straining, the angle produced by the movement of the puborectalis muscle decreased from 63 ± 1.31 to 58 ± 1.509 degrees (P = 0.0135) in 23 of the 30 patients in G-I, indicating normal relaxation, and increased from 66 ± 0.972 to 72 ± 0.897 degrees (P = 0.0001) in 16 of the 19 patients in G-II, indicating anismus. The index of agreement between manometry and two dimensional anal ultrasonography was moderate: 77% (23/30) for G-I and 84% (16/19) for G-II. CONCLUSION: Two-dimensional dynamic anal ultrasonography showed similar results previously suggested by anal manometry at identifying patients with normal relaxation or paradoxical contraction.

PMID 23049207 — Consensus statement AIGO/SICCR diagnosis and treatment of chronic constipation and obstructed defecation (part II: treatment).

Abstract

The second part of the Consensus Statement of the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Italian Society of Colo-Rectal Surgery reports on the treatment of chronic constipation and obstructed defecation. There is no evidence that increasing fluid intake and physical activity can relieve the symptoms of chronic constipation. Patients with normal-transit constipation should increase their fibre intake through their diet or with commercial fibre. Osmotic laxatives may be effective in patients who do not respond to fibre supplements. Stimulant laxatives should be reserved for patients who do not respond to osmotic laxatives. Controlled trials have shown that serotoninergic enterokinetic agents, such as prucalopride, and prosecretory agents, such as lubiprostone, are effective in the treatment of patients with chronic constipation. Surgery is sometimes necessary. Total colectomy with ileorectostomy may be considered in patients with slow-transit constipation and inertia coli who are resistant to medical therapy and who do not have defecatory disorders, generalised motility disorders or psychological disorders. Randomised controlled trials have established the efficacy of rehabilitative treatment in dys-synergic defecation. Many surgical procedures may be used to treat obstructed defecation in patients with acquired anatomical defects, but none is considered to be the gold standard. Surgery should be reserved for selected patients with an impaired quality of life. Obstructed defecation is often associated with pelvic organ prolapse. Surgery with the placement of prostheses is replacing fascial surgery in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, but the efficacy and safety of such procedures have not yet been established.

PMID 24199015 — Technique of functional and motility test: how to perform biofeedback for constipation and fecal incontinence.

Abstract

Biofeedback therapy is an instrument-based learning process centered on operant conditioning. The goal of biofeedback therapy in defecatory disorders is to strengthen the pelvic floor muscles, retrain rectal sensation and coordinate pelvic floor muscles during evacuation. Biofeedback therapy, in a broader sense, includes education, counseling, and diaphragmatic muscle training as well as exercise, sensory, and coordination training. For dyssynergic defecation, biofeedback therapy is a well-known and useful treatment option that had response rates of approximately 70-80% in randomized controlled trials. Biofeedback therapy for dyssynergic defecation consists of improving the abdominal push effort together with biofeedback technique-guided pelvic floor relaxation followed by simulated defecation and/or sensory training. For fecal incontinence, the results of a randomized controlled trial, which had a response rate of 76%, indicated that biofeedback therapy is useful in selected patients who fail to respond to conservative treatment and that training to enhance rectal discrimination of sensation may be helpful in reducing fecal incontinence. The focus of biofeedback therapy for fecal incontinence is on exercising external sphincter contractions under instant feedback, either alone or synchronously with rectal distension and/or sensory training. Biofeedback therapy is a safe treatment that may produce durable improvement beyond the active treatment period; however, a well-designed study to establish a standard protocol for biofeedback therapy is needed. This review discusses the technique of biofeedback therapy to achieve the goal and clinical outcomes for constipation and fecal incontinence.

PMID 24807604 — A concomitant treatment by CO2-releasing suppositories improves the results of anorectal biofeedback training in patients with dyschezia: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Dyschezia is a defecatory disorder that places a heavy burden on a patient’s quality of life. Biofeedback is the recommended treatment in most cases. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to test whether a CO2-releasing suppository for patients with dyschezia could be effective in improving biofeedback training results. DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled study was conducted in patients (18-75 years of age) with dyschezia defined according to the modified Rome III criteria. Patients were randomly assigned to either a CO2-releasing suppository or placebo suppository once per day for 21 days. SETTINGS: This was a multicenter trial. PATIENTS: A total of 122 patients were randomly assigned (62 intervention group and 60 placebo group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was the change from day 0 to day 21 in intensity of symptoms on the basis of a self-assessed dyschezia using a visual analog scale (range, 0-100). Analyses were performed using intention-to-treat principles. RESULTS: A greater reduction from baseline to day 21 in symptom visual analog scale score was observed in the intervention group (-41.3 mm) than in the control group (-22.3 mm). Some secondary efficacy parameters improved more in the intervention group, including the percentage of patients who improved ≥50%, symptom intensity over 21 days, stool stains on underwear or pads, and need to practice manual maneuvers to facilitate defecation at day 21. At day 21, rectal sensitivity in the intervention group (31.4 mL) was lower than in the control group (39.1 mL). LIMITATIONS: There was a lower number of patients recruited than planned by the protocol. The sponsor stopped the trial before the inclusion of 306 participants, with no intermediate analysis. In addition, the main analysis conducted on the full analysis set population could have led to a statistical bias. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this multicenter trial demonstrate the added benefits of a CO2-releasing suppository in patients with dyschezia who were treated by anorectal biofeedback training.

PMID 26387487 — Interventions for preventing postpartum constipation.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Postpartum constipation, with symptoms such as pain or discomfort, straining, and hard stool, is a common condition affecting mothers. Haemorrhoids, pain at the episiotomy site, effects of pregnancy hormones and haematinics used in pregnancy can increase the risk of postpartum constipation. Eating a high-fibre diet and increasing fluid intake is usually encouraged, although laxatives are commonly used in relieving constipation. The effectiveness and safety of available interventions for preventing postpartum constipation needs to be ascertained. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of interventions for preventing postpartum constipation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register (30 April 2015), Stellenbosch University database, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov (30 April 2015) and reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any intervention for preventing postpartum constipation versus another intervention, placebo or no intervention. Interventions could include pharmacological (e.g. laxatives) and non-pharmacological interventions (e.g. acupuncture, educational and behavioural interventions).We included quasi-randomised trials. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Studies using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the results of the search to select potentially relevant studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Results were pooled in a meta-analysis only where there was no substantial statistical heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials (1208 postpartum mothers); four compared a laxative with placebo and one compared a laxative alone versus the same laxative plus a bulking agent in women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears. Trials were poorly reported and risk of bias was unclear for most domains. Overall, there was a high risk of selection and attrition bias. Laxative versus placeboNone of the four trials included in this comparison assessed any of our pre-specified primary outcomes (pain or straining on defecation, incidence of postpartum constipation or changes in quality of life).All four trials reported time to first bowel movement (not pre-specified in our protocol). In one trial, more women in the laxative group had their first bowel movement less than 24 hours after delivery compared to women in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 2.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.24 to 3.75, 471 women). Individual trials also reported inconsistent results for days one, two and three after delivery. Pooled results of two trials showed that fewer women in the laxative group were having their first bowel movement at day four compared with controls (average RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.61, 671 women).Regarding secondary outcomes, no trials reported on stool consistency using the Bristol stool form scale orrelief of abdominal pain/discomfort . One trial reported the number of women having loose or watery stools and there were more women who experienced this in the laxative group compared to the placebo group (RR 26.96, 95% CI 3.81 to 191.03, 106 women). One trial found no clear difference in the number of enemas between groups (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.05, 244 women). One trial reported more women having more than two bowel movements per day in the laxative compared to the placebo group (RR 26.02, 95% CI 1.59 to 426.73, 106 women). Adverse effects were poorly reported; two trials reported the number of women having abdominal cramps, but their results could not be pooled in a meta-analysis due to substantial statistical heterogeneity. In one trial, more women in the laxative group had abdominal cramps compared to the placebo group (RR 4.23, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.19, 471 women), while the other trial showed no difference between groups (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.20, 200 women). With regards to adverse effects of the intervention on the baby , one trial found no difference in the incidence of loose stools (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.41, 281 women) or diarrhoea (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 26.82, 281 women) between the two groups. Laxative versus laxative plus bulking agentOnly one trial was included in this comparison and reported on pain or straining on defecation in women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears; there was no reported difference between groups (median (range) data only). No difference was reported in the incidence of postpartum constipation (data not reported) and the outcome changes in quality of life was not mentioned.Time to first bowel movement was reported as a median (range) with no difference between the two groups. In terms of adverse effects , women in the laxative plus stool-bulking group were reported to be at a greater risk of faecal incontinence during the immediate postpartum period (median (range) data only). However the number of women having any episode of faecal incontinence during first 10 days postpartum was reported with no clear difference between the two groups (14/77 (18.2%) versus 23/70 (32.9%), RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99, 147 women). The trial did not report on adverse effects of the intervention on the babies.The trial reported none of the following pre-specified secondary outcomes: stool consistency using Bristol stool form scale , use of alternative products , laxative agents , enemas , relief of abdominal pain/discomfort and stool frequency . AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify any trials assessing educational or behavioural interventions. We identified four trials that examined laxatives versus placebo and one that examined laxatives versus laxatives plus stool bulking agents. Results from trials were inconsistent and there is insufficient evidence to make general conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of laxatives.Further rigorous trials are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of laxatives during the postpartum period for preventing constipation. Trials assessing educational and behavioural interventions and positions that enhance defecation are also needed. Future trials should report on the following important outcomes: pain or straining on defecation; incidence of postpartum constipation, quality of life, time to first bowel movement after delivery, and adverse effects caused by the intervention such as: nausea or vomiting, pain and flatus.

PMID 30130627 — Effects of Alfuzosin, an α

  • Journal: Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association
  • Year: 2019
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.08.036
  • URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30130627/

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Some patients with defecatory disorders (DD) have high anal pressures that may impede rectal evacuation. Alpha-1 adrenoreceptors mediate as much as 50% of anal resting pressure in humans. We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled study of the effects of alfuzosin, an alpha1-adrenergic receptor antagonist, on anal pressures alone in healthy women and also on bowel symptoms in women with DD. METHODS: In a double-blind study performed from March 2013 through March 2017, anal pressures were evaluated before and after 36 women with DD (constipation for at least 1 year) and 36 healthy women (controls) were randomly assigned (1:1) to groups given oral alfuzosin (2.5 mg immediate release) or placebo. Thereafter, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to groups given oral alfuzosin (10 mg extended release) or placebo each day for 2 weeks. Participants kept daily diaries of bowel symptoms for 2 weeks before (baseline) and during administration of the test articles (treatment). Weekly questionnaires recorded the overall severity of constipation symptoms, bloating, abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting; overall satisfaction with treatment of constipation was evaluated at weeks 2 and 4. The primary endpoint was the change in the number of spontaneous (SBMs) and complete SBMs (CSBMs) between the treatment and baseline periods. We evaluated relationships between stool form, passage, and complete evacuation. RESULTS: Alfuzosin reduced anal resting pressure by 32 ± 3 mm Hg versus 16 ± 3 mm Hg for placebo (P = .0001) and anal pressure during evacuation by 26 ± 3 mm Hg versus 16 ± 3 mm Hg for placebo, (P = .03). However, alfuzosin did not significantly increase the rectoanal gradient, SBMs or CSBMs compared with placebo. Both formulations of alfuzosin were well tolerated. Hard stools and the ease of passage during defecation accounted for 72% and 76% of the variance in the satisfaction after defecation, respectively, during baseline and treatment periods. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial, alfuzosin reduced anal pressure at rest and during simulated evacuation in healthy and constipated women, compared with placebo, but did not improve bowel symptoms in constipated women. This could be because the drug does not improve stool form or dyssynergia, which also contribute to DD. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT 01834729.

PMID 30346317 — Implementation of a Defecation Posture Modification Device: Impact on Bowel Movement Patterns in Healthy Subjects.

Abstract

GOALS: The goal of this study was to evaluate the influence of defecation postural modification devices (DPMDs) on normal bowel patterns. BACKGROUND: The introduction of DPMDs has brought increased awareness to bowel habits in western populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective crossover study of volunteers was performed that included real-time collection of data regarding bowel movements (BMs) for 4 weeks (first 2 wk without DPMD and subsequent 2 wk with DPMD). Primary outcomes of interest included BM duration, straining, and bowel emptiness with and without DPMD use. RESULTS: In total, 52 participants (mean age, 29 y and 40.1% female) were recruited for this study. At baseline 15 subjects (28.8%) reported incomplete emptying, 23 subjects (44.2%) had increased straining, and 29 subjects (55.8%) noticed blood on their toilet paper in the past year. A total of 1119 BMs were recorded (735 without DPMD and 384 with DPMD). Utilizing the DPMD resulted in increased bowel emptiness (odds ratio, 3.64; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.78-4.77) and reduced straining patterns (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.18-0.30). Moreover, without the DPMD, participants had an increase in BM duration (fold increase, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.17-1.33). CONCLUSIONS: DPMDs positively influenced BM duration, straining patterns, and complete evacuation of bowels in this study.

PMID 31765640 — Impact of treatment for fecal incontinence on constipation symptoms.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Defecatory symptoms, such as a sense of incomplete emptying and straining with bowel movements, are paradoxically present in women with fecal incontinence. Treatments for fecal incontinence, such as loperamide and biofeedback, can worsen or improve defecatory symptoms, respectively. The primary aim of this study was to compare changes in constipation symptoms in women undergoing treatment for fecal incontinence with education only, loperamide, anal muscle exercises with biofeedback or both loperamide and biofeedback. Our secondary aim was to compare changes in constipation symptoms among responders and nonresponders to fecal incontinence treatment. STUDY DESIGN: This was a planned secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial comparing 2 first-line therapies for fecal incontinence in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Women with at least monthly fecal incontinence and normal stool consistency were randomized to 4 groups: (1) oral placebo plus education only, (2) oral loperamide plus education only, (3) placebo plus anorectal manometry-assisted biofeedback, and (4) loperamide plus biofeedback. Defecatory symptoms were measured using the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms questionnaire at baseline, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks. The Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms consists of 12 items that contribute to a global score and 3 subscales: stool characteristics/symptoms (hardness of stool, size of stool, straining, inability to pass stool), rectal symptoms (burning, pain, bleeding, incomplete bowel movement), and abdominal symptoms (discomfort, pain, bloating, cramps). Scores for each subscale as well as the global score range from 0 (no symptoms) to 4 (maximum score), with negative change scores representing improvement in defecatory symptoms. Responders to fecal incontinence treatment were defined as women with a minimally important clinical improvement of ≥5 points on the St Mark’s (Vaizey) scale between baseline and 24 weeks. Intent-to-treat analysis was performed using a longitudinal mixed model, controlling for baseline scores, to estimate changes in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores from baseline through 24 weeks. RESULTS: At 24 weeks, there were small changes in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms global scores in all 4 groups: oral placebo plus education (-0.3; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to -0.1), loperamide plus education (-0.1, 95% confidence interval, -0.3 to0.0), oral placebo plus biofeedback (-0.3, 95% confidence interval, -0.4 to -0.2), and loperamide plus biofeedback (-0.3, 95% confidence interval, -0.4 to -0.2). No differences were observed in change in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores between women randomized to placebo plus education and those randomized to loperamide plus education (P = .17) or placebo plus biofeedback (P = .82). Change in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores in women randomized to combination loperamide plus biofeedback therapy was not different from that of women randomized to treatment with loperamide or biofeedback alone. Responders had greater improvement in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores than nonresponders (-0.4; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to -0.3 vs -0.2; 95% confidence interval, -0.3 to -0.0, P < .01, mean difference, 0.2, 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.4). CONCLUSION: Change in constipation symptoms following treatment of fecal incontinence in women are small and are not significantly different between groups. Loperamide treatment for fecal incontinence does not worsen constipation symptoms among women with normal consistency stool. Women with clinically significant improvement in fecal incontinence symptoms report greater improvement in constipation symptoms.

PMID 32761813 — Interventions for preventing postpartum constipation.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Postpartum constipation, with symptoms, such as pain or discomfort, straining, and hard stool, is a common condition affecting mothers. Haemorrhoids, pain at the episiotomy site, effects of pregnancy hormones, and haematinics used in pregnancy can increase the risk of postpartum constipation. Eating a high-fibre diet and increasing fluid intake are usually encouraged. Although laxatives are commonly used in relieving constipation, the effectiveness and safety of available interventions for preventing postpartum constipation should be ascertained. This is an update of a review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of interventions for preventing postpartum constipation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, and two trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 October 2019), and screened reference lists of retrieved trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any intervention for preventing postpartum constipation versus another intervention, placebo, or no intervention in postpartum women. Interventions could include pharmacological (e.g. laxatives) and non-pharmacological interventions (e.g. acupuncture, educational and behavioural interventions). Quasi-randomised trials and cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion; none were identified. Trials using a cross-over design were not eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the results of the search to select potentially relevant trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence, using the GRADE approach. We did not pool results in a meta-analysis, but reported them per study. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials (1208 postpartum mothers); three RCTs and two quasi-RCTs. Four trials compared a laxative with placebo; one compared a laxative plus a bulking agent versus the same laxative alone, in women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears. Trials were poorly reported, and four of the five trials were published over 40 years ago. We judged the risk of bias to be unclear for most domains. Overall, we found a high risk of selection and attrition bias. Laxative versus placebo We included four trials in this comparison. Two of the trials examined the effects of laxatives that are no longer used; one has been found to have carcinogenic properties (Danthron), and the other is not recommended for lactating women (Bisoxatin acetate); therefore, we did not include their results in our main findings. None of the trials included in this comparison assessed our primary outcomes: pain or straining on defecation, incidence of postpartum constipation, or quality of life; or many of our secondary outcomes. A laxative (senna) may increase the number of women having their first bowel movement within 24 hours after delivery (risk ratio (RR) 2.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.24 to 3.75; 1 trial, 471 women; low-certainty evidence); may have little or no effect on the number of women having their first bowel movement on day one after delivery (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.22; 1 trial, 471 women; very low-certainty evidence); may reduce the number of women having their first bowel movement on day two (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.45; 1 trial, 471 women; low-certainty evidence); and day three (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.89; 1 trial, 471 women; low-certainty evidence); and may have little or no effect on the number of women having their first bowel movement on day four after delivery (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.87; 1 trial, 471 women; very low-certainty evidence), but some of the evidence is very uncertain. Adverse effects were poorly reported. Low-certainty evidence suggests that the laxative (senna) may increase the number of women experiencing abdominal cramps (RR 4.23, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.19; 1 trial, 471 women). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that laxatives taken by the mother may have little or no effect on loose stools in the baby (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.41; 1 trial, 281 babies); or diarrhoea (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 26.82; 1 trial, 281 babies). Laxative plus bulking agent versus laxative only Very low-certainty evidence from one trial (147 women) suggests no evidence of a difference between these two groups of women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears; only median and range data were reported. The trial also reported no evidence of a difference in the incidence of postpartum constipation (data not reported), but did not report on quality of life. Time to first bowel movement was reported as a median (range); very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between the two groups. A laxative plus bulking agent may increase the number of women having any episode of faecal incontinence during the first 10 days postpartum (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.23; 1 trial, 147 women; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report on adverse effects of the intervention on babies, or many of our secondary outcomes. AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to make general conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of laxatives for preventing postpartum constipation. The evidence in this review was assessed as low to very low-certainty evidence, with downgrading decisions based on limitations in study design, indirectness and imprecision. We did not identify any trials assessing educational or behavioural interventions. We identified four trials that examined laxatives versus placebo, and one that examined laxatives versus laxatives plus stool bulking agents. Further, rigorous trials are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of laxatives during the postpartum period for preventing constipation. Trials should assess educational and behavioural interventions, and positions that enhance defecation. They should report on the primary outcomes from this review: pain or straining on defecation, incidence of postpartum constipation, quality of life, time to first bowel movement after delivery, and adverse effects caused by the intervention, such as: nausea or vomiting, pain, and flatus.

PMID 33167889 — The effects of resistant starches on inflammatory bowel disease in preclinical and clinical settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a debilitating chronic disease with limited treatment options. Resistant starches may represent a novel treatment for IBD. However, its efficacy and safety remain unclear. Our objective was to perform a systematic review to summarize the preclinical and clinical effects of resistant starch, which may help guide future studies. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register were searched. Included studies investigated the use of resistant starch therapy in in vivo animal models of IBD or human patients with IBD. Articles were screened, and data extracted, independently and in duplicate. The primary outcomes were clinical remission (clinical) and bowel mucosal damage (preclinical). RESULTS: 21 preclinical (n = 989 animals) and seven clinical (n = 164 patients) studies met eligibility. Preclinically, resistant starch was associated with a significant reduction in bowel mucosal damage compared to placebo (standardized mean difference - 1.83, 95% CI - 2.45 to - 1.20). Clinically, five studies reported data on clinical remission but clinical and methodological heterogeneity precluded pooling. In all five, a positive effect was seen in patients who consumed resistant starch supplemented diets. The majority of studies in both the preclinical and clinical settings were at a high or unclear risk of bias due to poor methodological reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Our review demonstrates that resistant starch is associated with reduced histology damage in animal studies, and improvements in clinical remission in IBD patients. These results need to be tempered by the risk of bias of included studies. Rigorously designed preclinical and clinical studies are warranted. Trial registration The review protocols were registered on PROSPERO (preclinical: CRD42019130896; clinical: CRD42019129513).

PMID 34074830 — Exploratory Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Green Kiwifruit, Psyllium, or Prunes in US Patients With Chronic Constipation.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Psyllium and prunes are proven treatments for chronic constipation (CC). Asian studies suggest that kiwifruit may also benefit CC symptoms. We report a partially randomized, comparative effectiveness trial evaluating kiwifruit, psyllium, and prunes in US patients with CC. METHODS: Adults with CC at a US medical center were randomized to 3 natural treatments. Eligible patients had ≤3 complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBMs) per week and were partially randomized to green kiwifruit (2/d), prunes (100 g/d), or psyllium (12 g/d) for 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in each group reporting an increase of ≥1 CSBM per week compared with baseline for at least 2 of 4 treatment weeks. Key secondary outcomes included stool frequency, stool consistency, and straining assessed daily. Treatment satisfaction and adverse events (AEs) were also measured. Standard statistical methods were used, and a P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients with CC (mean age = 42.7 years, 87% female, and 77% white) were partially randomized. Complete data were available for 75 patients (kiwifruit 29, prunes 24, and psyllium 22). For the primary endpoint, proportions of CSBM responders were similar for the treatments. For secondary outcomes comparing treatment weeks 3 and 4 to baseline, there was a significant increase in weekly CSBM rate with all 3 treatments (P ≤ 0.003); stool consistency significantly improved with kiwifruit (P = 0.01) and prunes (P = 0.049); and straining significantly improved with kiwifruit (P = 0.003), prunes (P < 0.001), and psyllium (P = 0.04). Patients randomized to the kiwifruit group reported significant improvement in bloating scores (P = 0.02). AEs were most common with psyllium and least common with kiwifruit. At the end of treatment, a smaller proportion of patients were dissatisfied with kiwifruit compared with prunes or psyllium (P = 0.02). DISCUSSION: Kiwifruit, prunes, and psyllium improve constipation symptoms in patients with CC. Kiwifruit was associated with the lowest rate of AEs and dissatisfaction with therapy.

PMID 34712467 — Constipation in ulcerative colitis: pathophysiology and practical management.

Abstract

Clinical experience suggests that there is a cohort of patients with refractory colitis who do have faecal stasis that contributes to symptoms. The underlying physiology is poorly understood, partly because until recently the technology to examine segmental colonic motility has not existed. Patients are given little information on how proximal faecal stasis can complicate colitis. Treatment guidelines are scanty and many patients are offered little apart from laxatives and advice on increasing fibre intake, which often makes symptoms worse. This article aims to review the history, pathology and management, and create impetus for future research on this underappreciated condition.

PMID 34796435 — A novel wireless, smartphone-based biofeedback training device for functional defecatory disorders: a pilot study.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Functional defecatory disorders (FDDs) are highly prevalent around the world. Biofeedback is an effective treatment for FDDs. Traditionally, this treatment is performed by clinicians in a limited number of hospitals because of procedure-related expenses and a need for a dedicated procedure room. To make the biofeedback therapy more widely available, we have designed a novel wireless, smartphone-based biofeedback device, with the ultimate goal of performing the therapy at home. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate whether the developed device can be employed to treat patients with FDDs in a clinical setting, prior to employing it in a home setting. METHODS: From March 2018 to July 2018, we performed the biofeedback therapy using the newly developed wireless, smartphone-based device in patients with FDDs 30 min daily during weekdays for 2 weeks. A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for bowel satisfaction, Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms (PAC-SYM), Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL), and a balloon expulsion test were assessed at baseline and after the therapy. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were recruited and ten of them (mean age 70.3 ± 8.9 years, female:male ratio: 3:7) completed the study. Spontaneous bowel movements, complete spontaneous bowel movements, and VAS were all significantly increased after the therapy compared with baseline, respectively (6.5 ± 4.3 vs. 1.5 ± 2.2, p = 0.006; 3.1 ± 2.2 vs. 0.2 ± 0.6, p = 0.002; 49.5 ± 31.0 vs. 12.0 ± 9.2, p = 0.003). There was a significant decrease in the PAC-SYM and PAC-QoL after the biofeedback therapy (0.7 ± 0.6 vs. 1.4 ± 0.3, p = 0.001; 0.7 ± 0. 6 vs. 1.5 ± 0.4, p = 0.001). The therapy reduced the balloon expulsion time significantly (83.9 ± 68.8 s vs. 160.0 ± 36.7 s, p = 0.002). No obvious adverse events related to the procedure itself occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Biofeedback training using the newly developed wireless, smartphone-based device is feasible in the clinic setting, and it seems to be a promising method for improving constipation and related symptoms in patients with FDDs. These findings could be used to develop a much-needed, home-based, suitably powered, randomized, controlled clinical trial.

PMID 34871343 — Tolerability and SCFA production after resistant starch supplementation in humans: a systematic review of randomized controlled studies.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Resistant starches (RSs) have been advocated as a dietary supplement to address microbiota dysbiosis. They are postulated to act through the production of SCFAs. Their clinical tolerability and effect on SCFA production has not been systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review of RS supplementation as an intervention in adults (healthy individuals and persons with medical conditions) participating in randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was tolerability of RS supplementation, the secondary outcome was SCFA production. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register were searched. Articles were screened, and data extracted, independently and in duplicate. RESULTS: A total of 39 trials met eligibility criteria, including a total of 2263 patients. Twenty-seven (69%) studies evaluated the impact of RS supplementation in healthy subjects whereas 12 (31%) studies included individuals with an underlying medical condition (e.g., obesity, prediabetes). Type 2 RS was most frequently investigated (29 studies). Of 12 studies performed in subjects with health conditions, 11 reported on tolerability. All studies showed that RS supplementation was tolerated; 9 of these studies used type 2 RS with doses of 20-40 g/d for >4 wk. Of 27 studies performed in healthy subjects, 20 reported on tolerability. In 14 studies, RS supplementation was tolerated, and the majority used type 2 RS with a dose between 20 and 40 g/d. Twenty-one (78%) studies reporting SCFAs used type 2 RS with a dose of 20-40 g/d for 1-4 wk. In 16 of 23 studies (70%), SCFA production was increased, in 7 studies there was no change in SCFA concentration before and after RS supplementation, and in 1 study SCFA concentration decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that RS supplementation is tolerated in both healthy subjects and in those with an underlying medical condition. In addition, SCFA production was increased in most of the studies.

PMID 35135664 — Diagnostic Strategy and Tools for Identifying Defecatory Disorders.

Abstract

This article reviews the indications, techniques, interpretation, strengths, and weaknesses of tests (anal manometry, anal surface electromyography, rectal balloon expulsion test, barium and MRI defecography, assessment of rectal compliance and sensation, and colonic transit) that are used diagnose defecatory disorders in constipated patients. The selection of tests and the sequence in which they are performed should be individualized to and interpreted in the context of the clinical features. Because anorectal functions are affected by age, results should be interpreted with reference to age- and sex-matched normal values for the same technique.

PMID 35297467 — Effectiveness of Partially Hydrolyzed Guar Gum in Reducing Constipation in Long Term Care Facility Residents: A Randomized Single-Blinded Placebo-Controlled Trial.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of partially hydrolyzed guar gum (PHGG) in improving constipation and reducing the use of laxatives among long term care facility (LTCF) residents. DESIGN: A single-center, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, single-blinded parallel-group trial from September 2021 to November 2021. SETTING: Four LTCF in Hong Kong. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-two LTCF residents with chronic constipation (mean age: 83.9±7.6 years, male 38%). INTERVENTION: 5g PHGG mixed with 200ml water per day for 4 weeks was given to intervention group participants. Control group received 200ml water for 4 weeks. Participants continued their usual as-needed laxative (lactulose, senna or dulcolax) on their own initiative. MEASUREMENTS: Baseline measurements included age, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, Roackwood’s Clinical Frailty Scale, body mass index and daily dietary fiber intake. Outcome measures were fecal characteristics assessed by Bristol Stool Form Scale, bowel opening frequency and laxative use frequency at baseline, first, second, third and fourth week of trial. Adverse events were measured. The study was registered on ClinicalTrial.gov; identifier: NCT05037565. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in bowel frequency and stool characteristics between the treatment group and control group. However, there was a significantly lower frequency of lactulose, senna, and total laxative use in the treatment group compared with controls in the third and fourth week. There was no significant difference in adverse effects between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This study showed that daily dietary fibre supplementation by using PHGG for 4 weeks in LTCF residents results in significantly less laxative use than placebo. It may be an effective way to reduce laxative dependence among older people living in LTCFs.

PMID 35451489 — Therapeutic Potential of the 4 Strategies to SUlfide-REduction (4-SURE) Diet in Adults with Mild to Moderately Active Ulcerative Colitis: An Open-Label Feasibility Study.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diet therapy may bridge the therapeutic gap in ulcerative colitis (UC). OBJECTIVES: The novel 4-SURE diet (4-strategies-to-SUlfide-REduction), designed to modulate colonic fermentation and influence production of excess hydrogen sulfide, was examined in a feasibility study for tolerability, clinical efficacy, and effects on microbial endpoints. METHODS: Adults aged ≥18 y old with mild to moderately active UC were advised to increase intake of fermentable fibers, restrict total and sulfur-containing proteins, and avoid specific food additives for 8 wk. The primary outcome was tolerability of diet [100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) with 100-mm being intolerable]. Secondary exploratory outcomes were self-reported adherence (always adherent ≥76-100%), clinical and endoscopic response (reduction in partial Mayo ≥2 and Mayo endoscopic subscore ≥1), modulation of fecal characteristics including markers of protein and carbohydrate fermentation, and food-related quality of life (IBD-FRQoL-29). Primary analysis was by intention to treat, performed using paired t and Wilcoxon signed-rank statistical tests. RESULTS: Twenty-eight adults with UC [mean (range) age: 42 (22-72) y, 15 females, 3 proctitis, 14 left-sided, and 11 extensive] were studied. Prescribed dietary targets were achieved overall. The diet was well tolerated (VAS: 19 mm; 95% CI: 7, 31 mm) with 95% frequently or always adherent. Clinical response occurred in 13 of 28 (46%) and endoscopic improvement in 10 of 28 participants (36%). Two participants (7%) worsened. Fecal excretion of SCFAs increased by 69% (P < 0.0001), whereas the proportion of branched-chain fatty acids to SCFAs was suppressed by 27% (-1.34%; 95% CI: -2.28%, -0.40%; P = 0.007). The FRQoL improved by 10 points (95% CI: 4, 16; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The 4-SURE dietary strategy is considered tolerable and an acceptable diet by adults with mild to moderately active UC. The dietary teachings achieved the prescribed dietary and fecal targets. Given signals of therapeutic efficacy, further evaluation of this diet is warranted in a placebo-controlled trial. This trial was registered at https://www.anzctr.org.au (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry) as ACTRN12619000063112.

PMID 35816465 — The Effect of Fiber Supplementation on Chronic Constipation in Adults: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Chronic constipation is a prevalent disorder that remains challenging to treat. Studies suggest increasing fiber intake may improve symptoms, although recommendations on the fiber type, dose, and treatment duration are unclear. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the effects of fiber supplementation on stool output, gut transit time, symptoms, and quality of life in adults with chronic constipation via a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Studies were identified using electronic databases, backward citation, and hand searches of abstracts. RCTs reporting administration of fiber supplementation in adults with chronic constipation were included. Risks of bias (RoB) was assessed with the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. Results were synthesized using risk ratios (RRs), mean differences, or standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% CIs using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs with 1251 participants were included. Overall, 311 of 473 (66%) participants responded to fiber treatment and 134 of 329 (41%) responded to control treatment [RR: 1.48 (95% CI: 1.17, 1.88; P = 0.001); I2 = 57% (P = 0.007)], with psyllium and pectin having significant effects. A higher response to treatment was apparent in fiber groups compared to control groups irrespective of the treatment duration, but only with higher fiber doses (>10 g/d). Fiber increased stool frequency [SMD: 0.72 (95% CI: 0.36, 1.08; P = 0.0001); I2 = 86% (P < 0.00001)]; psyllium and pectin had significant effects, and improvement was apparent only with higher fiber doses and greater treatment durations (≥4 weeks). Fiber improved stool consistency (SMD: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.46; P < 0.0001), particularly with higher fiber doses. Flatulence was higher in fiber groups compared to control groups(SMD: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.47, 1.13; P < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Fiber supplementation is effective at improving constipation. Particularly, psyllium, doses >10 g/d and treatment durations of at least 4 weeks appear optimal, though caution is needed when interpreting the results due to considerable heterogeneity. These findings provide promising evidence on the optimal type and regime of fiber supplementation, which could be used to standardize recommendations to patients. The protocol for this review is registered at PROSPERO as CRD42020191404.

PMID 36235798 — Two Gold Kiwifruit Daily for Effective Treatment of Constipation in Adults-A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Abstract

Chronic constipation is highly prevalent worldwide and may be managed with two green or three gold kiwifruit daily. It is unknown whether a smaller standard serve of gold kiwifruit (two daily) is as effective in constipation management. The study aimed to improve chronic constipation with two gold kiwifruit and psyllium in lieu of a placebo daily over four weeks. Adult participants (18-65 years) with functional constipation (FC, n = 11), constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C, n = 13), and healthy controls (n = 32) were block-randomized to the treatment order: gold kiwifruit (2/day) or psyllium (fiber-matched, 7.5 g/day) for four weeks, followed by four weeks washout before crossover. Outcomes included alterations of Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) domains and weekly complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBM) as part of a larger study. Both interventions reduced GSRS constipation domain scores in all subjects compared to baseline values (p = 0.004). All participants reported significantly more weekly CSBM (p = 0.014). Two gold kiwifruit decreased straining (p = 0.021). Two gold kiwifruit daily are as effective as fiber-matched psyllium in treating constipation in adults and should be considered as a treatment option.

PMID 37204227 — American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common disorder associated with significant impairment in quality of life. This clinical practice guideline, jointly developed by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology, aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of CIC in adults. METHODS: The American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that conducted systematic reviews of the following agents: fiber, osmotic laxatives (polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, lactulose), stimulant laxatives (bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, senna), secretagogues (lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide), and serotonin type 4 agonist (prucalopride). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to assess the certainty of evidence for each intervention. The Evidence to Decision framework was used to develop clinical recommendations based on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 10 recommendations for the pharmacological management of CIC in adults. Based on available evidence, the panel made strong recommendations for the use of polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride for CIC in adults. Conditional recommendations were made for the use of fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone. DISCUSSION: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the various over-the-counter and prescription pharmacological agents available for the treatment of CIC. The guidelines are meant to provide a framework for approaching the management of CIC; clinical providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences as well as medication cost and availability. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to help guide future research opportunities and enhance the care of patients with chronic constipation.

PMID 37211380 — American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common disorder associated with significant impairment in quality of life. This clinical practice guideline, jointly developed by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology, aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of CIC in adults. METHODS: The American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that conducted systematic reviews of the following agents: fiber, osmotic laxatives (polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, lactulose), stimulant laxatives (bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, senna), secretagogues (lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide), and serotonin type 4 agonist (prucalopride). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to assess the certainty of evidence for each intervention. The Evidence to Decision framework was used to develop clinical recommendations based on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 10 recommendations for the pharmacological management of CIC in adults. Based on available evidence, the panel made strong recommendations for the use of polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride for CIC in adults. Conditional recommendations were made for the use of fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone. DISCUSSION: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the various over-the-counter and prescription pharmacological agents available for the treatment of CIC. The guidelines are meant to provide a framework for approaching the management of CIC; clinical providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences as well as medication cost and availability. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to help guide future research opportunities and enhance the care of patients with chronic constipation.

PMID 39886333 — Highlights From the Joint AGA/ACG Guideline on Pharmacologic Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation.

Abstract

No abstract available in PubMed.

PMID 40604598 — Sitting vs. squatting: a scoping review of toilet postures and associated health outcomes.

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The comparison between squatting and sitting toilets involves complex health, ergonomic, and design considerations. This scoping review aims to synthesize evidence on the digestive, musculoskeletal, and ergonomic health outcomes associated with squatting and sitting toilet postures, while also exploring related health impacts (e.g., urinary and cardiovascular) and design considerations. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted on January 1, 2024, searching Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were defined using the patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcomes (PICO) framework. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, supplemented by hand searches in Google Scholar and Science Direct, and snowballing. Methodological quality was appraised using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists. RESULTS: Forty-two studies were analyzed. Squatting may reduce digestive strain and enhance bowel evacuation, potentially benefiting constipation, while sitting toilets may increase bowel-related issues but provide comfort for specific populations, such as older adults. Musculoskeletal outcomes vary, with squatting linked to strain in vulnerable groups and sitting toilets reducing joint stress when ergonomically designed. Ergonomic innovations, such as adjustable seats and non-slip surfaces, show promise in improving comfort and minimizing health risks. Methodological limitations, including small sample sizes and inadequate control of confounders, preclude definitive conclusions. CONCLUSION: Squatting and sitting toilet postures differentially influence digestive health, musculoskeletal strain, and sanitation, shaped by individual needs, cultural practices, and environmental factors. Practical implications include developing adjustable, hygiene-focused, culturally sensitive toilet designs to enhance public health. Longitudinal studies with robust methodologies are needed to clarify chronic health impacts and optimize user-centered toilet design solutions.

Graph View