Osmotic and stimulant laxatives for the management of childhood constipation

Abstract

Background Constipation within childhood is an extremely common problem. Despite the widespread use of osmotic and stimulant laxatives by health professionals to manage constipation in children, there has been a long standing paucity of high quality evidence to support this practice. Objectives We set out to evaluate the efficacy and safety of osmotic and stimulant laxatives used to treat functional childhood constipation. Search methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Trials Register from inception to 10 March 2016. There were no language restrictions. We also searched the references of all included studies, personal contacts and drug companies to identify studies. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared osmotic or stimulant laxatives to placebo or another intervention, with participants aged 0 to 18 years old were considered for inclusion. The primary outcome was frequency of defecation. Secondary endpoints included faecal incontinence, disimpaction, need for additional therapies and adverse events. Data collection and analysis Relevant papers were identified and two authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials, extracted data and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was frequency of defecation. Secondary endpoints included faecal incontinence, disimpaction, need for additional therapies and adverse events. For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For dichotomous outcomes we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI using a fixed-effect model. The Chi 2 and I 2 statistics were used to assess statistical heterogeneity. A random-effects model was used in situations of unexplained heterogeneity. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE criteria. * The basis f or the assumed risk (e.g. the m edian control group risk across studies) is provided in f ootnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% conf idence interval) is based on the assum ed risk in the com parison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Conf idence interval; GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our conf idence in the estim ate of ef f ect. M oderate quality: Further research is likely to have an im portant im pact on our conf idence in the estim ate of ef f ect and m ay change the estim ate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an im portant im pact on our conf idence in the estim ate of ef f ect and is likely to change the estim ate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estim ate. 1 Downgraded one level due to sparse data (101 patients). 2 Downgraded one level due to inconsistency (m oderate statistical heterogeneity I 2 = 58%). 3 Control group risk com es f rom control arm of m eta-analysis, based on...

A Brief Review of Nutraceutical Ingredients in Gastrointestinal Disorders: Evidence and Suggestions

“…Nutraceutical ingredients for different GI disorders are summarized in Table 1. [15][16][17] Cascara TCM/Anthraquinone Constipation human Improve stool frequency and consistency [18] Mixed fiber Fiber Constipation human Alleviate flatulence, bloating [19] Saccharomyces cerevisiae Yeast IBS human Improve abdominal pain and bloating symptoms [20] Andrographis…”

Here, there, and everywhere: How pathogenicEscherichia colisense and respond to gastrointestinal biogeography

“…The ability of AE pathogens to survive such barriers, undergo population expansion, and manipulate the gut landscape for their own persistence and transmission is yet another example of our co-evolution. However, we are now jeopardising our position in this host-microbial arms race by artificially removing intestinal barriers without considering the consequences: for example, the overuse of PPIs to neutralise stomach acid that helps pathogens survive the gastric environment or the rise in over-the-counter osmotic laxative use for childhood constipation, which can obliterate the resident microbiota and protective mucus layer (Gordon, MacDonald, Parker, Akobeng, & Thomas, 2016).…”

Association between anthraquinone laxatives and colorectal cancer: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…After oral ingestion, AQs are generally metabolized to active aglycones, which exert their laxative effect by damaging epithelial cells, leading directly and indirectly to changes in intestinal absorption, secretion, and motility [1]. In particular, two different mechanisms of action have been proposed: (1) an effect on large intestine motility resulting in accelerated colonic transit, thus reducing fluid absorption, and (2) an effect on secretion processes resulting in enhanced fluid absorption. At a cellular level, one main target is the inhibition of the Cl − -channels across colon cells, contributing to the laxative effect [2].…”