Gastrointestinal Tract Adverse Events Research Articles

Place of metformin in modern clinical guidelines for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Diabetes mellitus is one of the most common endocrine diseases. Type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated with high cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and is a leading cause of chronic kidney disease and end-stage kidney disease. To date, for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes, hypoglycemic drugs are used that affect different parts of the pathogenesis. Metformin is a biguanide that is used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus; it is effective as monotherapy and in combination with other glucose-lowering medications. In addition to the treatment of diabetes mellitus, metformin is recommended and widely used for the treatment of prediabetes. Metformin is generally well-tolerated with minimal side effects and is affordable. Metformin is very effective in HbA1c lowering associated with some weight loss, but does not increase risk for hypoglycemia. With the use of metformin in monotherapy, the decrease in HbA1c levels is 1–2%. Despite the appearance in practice of a fairly large number of new, effective glucose-lowering drugs, metformin is still the drug of choice in many cases. And most diabetic associations recommend metformin as a first-line drug. Metformin has demonstrated many positive effects in observational studies in patients with CAD, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. This review presents data on the efficacy and, pleiotropic effects of metformin. Possible adverse events are also discussed, including the risk of low level and deficiency of vitamin B12, gastrointestinal tract adverse events.

Chinese traditional medicine (GuiZhi-ShaoYao-ZhiMu decoction) as an add-on medication to methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Background:GuiZhi-ShaoYao-ZhiMu decoction (GSZD), a traditional Chinese herbal medication, has been frequently used as an add-on medication to methotrexate (MTX) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment in China. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of adding GSZD to MTX for RA treatment.Methods:We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (all databases) for English-language studies and WanFang, VIP, and CNKI for Chinese-language studies up to 28 July 2020. Data from selected studies, mainly the response rates and rate of adverse events (AEs), were extracted independently by two authors, and a random-effects model (Mantel–Haenszel method) was used for the meta-analysis.Results:A total of 14 randomized controlled trials and 1224 patients were included (623 patients in the GSZD + MTX group and 601 patients in the MTX group). For efficacy, the meta-analysis found that combining GSZD with MTX increased the effective rate [relative risk (RR) = 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.18–1.30, based on 1069 patients], defined as >30% efficacy, American College of Rheumatology 20, or a decrease of disease activity score 28 >0.6. Adding GSZD reduced the swollen and tender joint counts, the duration of morning stiffness, the levels of C-reactive protein and rheumatoid factor, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. The adjuvant therapeutic effect of GSZD was independent of the dose of MTX or the combined utilization of other drugs in both groups. For safety, adding GSZD was associated with a lower rate of total AEs (RR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.26–0.83, based on 615 patients) and gastrointestinal tract AEs (RR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.24–0.88, based on 537 patients).Conclusion:Combining GSZD with MTX may be a more efficacious and safer strategy for treating RA compared with MTX alone. Further large studies are warranted to investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of adding GSZD to MTX for RA treatment.

Gastrointestinal Tract Adverse Events.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shown significant benefit in cancer patients. Their success, however, is associated with immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which commonly affect the gastrointestinal tract, resulting in diarrhea and colitis. IrAEs range from mild self-limiting to severe life-threatening diseases and potentially limit the use of these medications. Diagnosis of ICI-induced enterocolitis is based on clinical symptoms, physical examination, stool tests, endoscopic and histologic evaluation, and/or imaging. Current management strategy is mainly anti-diarrheal agents for mild symptoms and immunosuppressants (e.g., corticosteroids, and infliximab or vedolizumab) for more severe diseases.

Upper gastrointestinal safety and tolerability of oral alendronate: A meta-analysis.

Osteoporosis (OP), which is a common bone disease associated with reduced bone mineral density and disordered bone microstructure, may result in an increased risk of bone fracture. The present study aimed to investigate the frequency of alendronate (Aln)-associated upper gastrointestinal tract adverse events (GIAEs) in postmenopausal women with OP. The following databases were searched in order to identify relevant studies: Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), Embase, the Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to December 2014). Studies were selected for inclusion if they were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, which had investigated the safety of Aln versus a placebo for the treatment of postmenopausal women with OP. The primary outcomes of the included studies were total adverse events (AEs) and upper GIAEs, whereas individual upper GIAEs were considered as secondary outcomes. The general characteristics and outcomes of each study were abstracted by two independent researchers, and Review Manager 5.3 software was used for data syntheses and the meta-analysis. A total of nine studies, including 15,192 randomized patients, met the inclusion criteria and contributed to some or all of the meta-analysis outcomes. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate risk ratios, and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined using either the fixed or random effects model, depending on the level of heterogeneity. The relative risk (95% CI) of AEs associated with Aln treatment, as compared with the placebo group, was 1.01 (0.97-1.06), and the relative risk (95% CI) of discontinued Aln treatment due to AEs was 1.04 (0.91-1.19). In addition, the relative risk (95% CI) of upper GIAEs was 1.02 (0.99-1.06), and the relative risk (95% CI) of discontinued Aln treatment due to upper GIAEs was 1.23 (0.97-56). In addition, these results remained robust to sensitivity analyses. The results of the present study suggested that Aln has a good GI tract tolerability, and that daily treatment with 10 mg Aln sodium does not increase the risk of GIAEs in postmenopausal women with OP.

Efficacy and safety of risedronate 150-mg once a month in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: 2-year data

SummaryThis study showed that risedronate 150-mg once a month provides similar efficacy and safety at 2 years compared with risedronate 5-mg daily for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. This adds to the range of risedronate dosing options and provides an alternative for patients who prefer once-a-month dosing.IntroductionRisedronate is effective in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in oral daily, weekly, or on two consecutive days per month doses. This 2-year randomized, double-blind, multicenter study assesses the efficacy and safety of a single risedronate 150-mg once-a-month oral dose compared with the 5-mg daily regimen.MethodsWomen with postmenopausal osteoporosis were randomly assigned to receive risedronate 5-mg daily (n = 642) or 150-mg once a month (n = 650) for 2 years. Bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover markers, new vertebral fractures, and adverse events were evaluated. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD after 1 year.ResultsFour hundred ninety-eight subjects in the daily group (77.6 %) and 513 subjects in the once-a-month group (78.9 %) completed the study. After 24 months, the mean percent change in lumbar spine BMD was 3.9 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], 3.43 to 4.42 %) and 4.2 % (95 % CI, 3.68 to 4.65 %) in the daily and once-a-month groups, respectively. The once-a-month regimen was determined to be non-inferior to the daily regimen. The mean percent changes in BMD at the hip were similar in both dose groups, as were changes in biochemical markers of bone turnover. The incidence of adverse events, adverse events leading to withdrawal, and upper gastrointestinal tract adverse events were similar in the two treatment groups.ConclusionsAfter 2 years, treatment with risedronate 150-mg once a month provided similar efficacy and tolerability to daily dosing and provides an alternative for patients who prefer once-a-month oral dosing.

Tolerance and pharmacokinetics of single-dose intravenous hemoporfin in healthy volunteers

To investigate the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of intravenous hemoporfin, a novel photosensitive drug for the treatment of port-wine stain (PWS), in healthy Chinese volunteers following single-dose administration. Thirty-six healthy Chinese subjects were enrolled. The subjects were administered hemoporfin (2.5, 5, 7.5 or 10 mg/kg) via single-dose intravenous infusion. Pharmacokinetics of the drug were studied in the groups with doses of 2.5, 5 and 7.5 mg/kg, and tolerability was studied in all the 4 groups. Safety and tolerance were evaluated by monitoring adverse events and laboratory parameters, and pharmacokinetics were assessed by determining hemoporfin content with a validated high-performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection (HPLC/FLD) method. Mild and transient adverse events occurred in the trial (n=10), but none were serious, and no subjects were withdrawn from the trial. The gastrointestinal tract adverse events, such as nausea, stomach upset, abdominal pain and vomiting, were observed in the groups with doses of 7.5 and 10 mg/kg. Increased alanine aminotransferase (ALT) concentration was found in 3 subjects, and increased alkaline phosphatase (ALP) concentration in one subject. The half-life of hemoporfin for doses of 2.5, 5, and 7.5 mg/kg was 1.26 h, 1.31 h, and 1.70 h, respectively. C(max) and AUC increased with dose for intravenous single-dose administration of hemoporfin in the 2.5, 5, and 7.5 mg/kg groups. Urinary excretion of hemoporfin within 12 h was less than 0.2%. Hemoporfin is safe and well-tolerated in healthy Chinese volunteers at a single intravenous dose of up to 10 mg/kg. It was rapidly cleared from the blood and had a short half-life, which insures a short light-avoidance period.

Efficacy and Safety of Glucocorticoids Therapy for IgA Nephropathy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Published reports examining the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids for preserving renal function in immunoglobulin A nephropathy (IgAN) have yielded conflicting results. To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids agents for IgAN, we conducted a meta-analysis of the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and article reference lists were searched for RCTs that compared glucocorticoids with placebo and any other non-immunosuppressive agents for treating IgAN. The quality of the studies was evaluated with the method of the intention-to-treat analysis and allocation concealment, as well as with the Jadad method. Meta-analyses were performed on the outcomes of proteinuria and renal survival and adverse events in patients with IgAN. Results: Seven RCTs involving 386 patients were included in the review. Four RCTs reported renal survival data with Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Overall, glucocorticoid agents had statistically significant effects on improved renal survival (HR 0.20, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.39) and reduction of proteinuria (standardized mean difference SMD, –0.51; 95% CI –0.73 to –0.29) when compared with the control group. Tests for heterogeneity showed no difference in effect among the studies. In general, glucocorticoid agents were well tolerated. Patients receiving glucocorticoids therapy did not have an increased risk of development of type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension or Cushingoid adverse effects, while glucocorticoids were associated with a significant increase in the risk of gastrointestinal tract adverse events. Conclusions: The current cumulative evidence suggests that glucocorticoids have statistically significant effects on protecting renal function and reduction of proteinuria in patients with IgAN, but we should be careful for its gastrointestinal tract reaction. In general, glucocorticoids agents are a promising medication and should be investigated further.

Risedronate on Two Consecutive Days per Month

Risedronate, an orally administered pyridinal bisphosphonate, is effective in the treatment and prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Efforts to optimize patient adherence and persistence with, and hence the effectiveness of, therapy have led to the development of a 75 mg tablet to be taken on two consecutive days each month (2CDM). After 1 year of treatment, risedronate 75 mg 2CDM was noninferior to risedronate 5 mg once daily in improving lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) in an ongoing (2-year) randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multinational trial in 1229 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Mean percentage increases in BMD from baseline at 12 months were 3.4% and 3.6% in the 75 mg 2CDM and 5 mg once-daily groups; the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (5 mg once daily - 75 mg 2CDM; -0.19%, 0.62%) did not exceed the predefined noninferiority margin (1.5%). In general, improvements in hip BMD and reductions in bone turnover markers with the 75 mg 2CDM regimen were not significantly different from those with the 5 mg once-daily regimen; there was no significant between-group difference in the incidence of new vertebral fractures at 12 months. The tolerability profile (including the incidence of upper gastrointestinal tract adverse events) of risedronate 75 mg 2CDM in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis was similar to that of risedronate 5 mg once daily.

Efficacy and safety of risedronate 150 mg once a month in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis

Introduction: Risedronate has been shown to be effective in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis when given orally in daily or weekly doses or on 2 consecutive days per month. This randomized, double-blind, multi-center study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of a single 150 mg risedronate once-a-month oral dose compared with the 5 mg daily regimen. Methods: Women with postmenopausal osteoporosis were randomly assigned to receive risedronate 5 mg daily ( n = 642) or 150 mg once a month (followed by daily placebo) ( n = 650) in a double-blind fashion for 2 years. Study drug was taken on an empty stomach at least 30 min before breakfast. Bone mineral density, bone turnover markers, fractures, and adverse events were evaluated. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean percent change from baseline in lumbar spine bone mineral density after 1 year. Results: 538 patients in the daily group (83.8%) and 556 patients in the once-a-month group (85.5%) completed 1 year. The mean percent change in lumbar spine bone mineral density was 3.4% (95% confidence interval, 3.03% to 3.82%) in the daily group and 3.5% (95% confidence interval, 3.15% to 3.93%) in the once-a-month group. The difference between groups was − 0.1% (95% confidence interval, − 0.51% to 0.27%). The once-a-month regimen was determined to be non-inferior to the daily regimen based on prospectively defined criteria. The mean percent changes in bone mineral density at sites in the hip (total proximal femur, femoral neck, femoral trochanter) were also similar in both dose groups, as were the changes in biochemical markers of bone turnover. The incidence of adverse events, adverse events leading to withdrawal, and upper gastrointestinal tract adverse events were similar in the 2 treatment groups. Both regimens were well tolerated; the percent of patients who withdrew from treatment as a result of an adverse event was 9.5% in the daily group and 8.6% in the once-a-month group. Conclusions: Risedronate 150 mg once a month is similar in efficacy and safety to daily dosing and may provide an alternative for patients who prefer once-a-month oral dosing.

Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Safety of Daily Oral Risedronate in Patients Taking NSAIDs: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

To evaluate the frequency of upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract adverse events associated with risedronate during two (2-year) randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled studies. Male and female patients aged 40 to 80 years with mild to moderate medial-compartment knee osteoarthritis were enrolled. Data were pooled and analyzed for risedronate at 5 mg and at 15 mg once daily and compared with placebo. The results of the once-weekly dosages (35 or 50 mg) were assessed separately. A total of 2483 patients were randomized: 622 to placebo, 628 to risedronate at 5 mg/d, 609 to risedronate at 15 mg/d, 310 to risedronate at 35 mg once weekly, and 314 to risedronate at 50 mg once weekly. During the study, 77% of patients were regular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and/or analgesic users (defined as those who took medication 23 days per week), and 68% were regular NSAID users. The number of upper GI tract adverse events was similar between treatment groups, with no dose-related response: 161 for placebo, 176 for rlsedronate at 5 mg/d, and 150 for risedronate at 15 mg/d. The time to the first upper GI tract adverse event was similar between treatment groups. There was no difference in the frequency of upper GI tract adverse events In risedronate-treated patients compared with patients who were regular users of NSAIDs or NSAIDs and/or analgesics. Findings were similar for those in the once-weekly risedronate groups. The results of this study show that risedronate regimens at 5 mg/d or 15 mg/d as well as once weekly at 35 mg or 50 mg are not associated with an increased frequency of upper GI tract adverse events, even in patients who have an increased risk for such events.

Effect of Orlistat on Weight and Body Composition in Obese Adolescents

The prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adolescents is increasing rapidly. In this population, behavioral therapy alone has had limited success in providing meaningful, sustained weight reduction, and pharmacological treatment has not been extensively studied. To determine the efficacy and safety of orlistat in weight management of adolescents. Multicenter, 54-week (August 2000-October 2002), randomized, double-blind study of 539 obese adolescents (aged 12-16 years; body mass index [BMI] >or=2 units above the 95th percentile) at 32 centers in the United States and Canada. A 120-mg dose of orlistat (n = 357) or placebo (n = 182) 3 times daily for 1 year, plus a mildly hypocaloric diet (30% fat calories), exercise, and behavioral therapy. Change in BMI; secondary measures included changes in waist and hip circumference, weight loss, lipid measurements, and glucose and insulin responses to oral glucose challenge. There was a decrease in BMI in both treatment groups up to week 12, thereafter stabilizing with orlistat but increasing beyond baseline with placebo. At the end of the study, BMI had decreased by 0.55 with orlistat but increased by 0.31 with placebo (P = .001). Compared with 15.7% of the placebo group, 26.5% of participants taking orlistat had a 5% or higher decrease in BMI (P = .005); 4.5% and 13.3%, respectively, had a 10% or higher decrease in BMI (P = .002). At study end, weight had increased 0.53 kg with orlistat and 3.14 kg with placebo (P<.001). Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry showed that this difference was explained by changes in fat mass. Waist circumference decreased in the orlistat group but increased in the placebo group (-1.33 cm vs +0.12 cm; P<.05). Generally mild to moderate gastrointestinal tract adverse events occurred in 9% to 50% of the orlistat group and in 1% to 13% of the placebo group. In combination with diet, exercise, and behavioral modification, orlistat statistically significantly improved weight management in obese adolescents compared with placebo. The use of orlistat for 1 year in this adolescent population did not raise major safety issues although gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the orlistat group.

Upper gastrointestinal and overall tolerability of alendronate once weekly in patients with osteoporosis: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

SUMMARYObjective: To compare the upper gastrointestinal (GI) and overall tolerability profiles of alendronate 70 mg once weekly with placebo.Research design and methods: This 12-week international, multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included 449 postmenopausal women and men with osteoporosis at 44 sites in 19 countries in Europe, the Americas, Africa, and Asia-Pacific. Subjects were randomized to alendronate 70 mg once weekly or matching placebo in a 1:1 ratio.Main outcome measures: The safety and tolerability of weekly alendronate and placebo were captured as clinical and laboratory adverse events. The primary endpoint was upper GI tolerability based on the incidence of upper GI tract adverse events. Secondary endpoints included the percentage of subjects who discontinued therapy due to a drug-related upper GI adverse event. Change from baseline in bone turnover as measured by the urinary N-telopeptide-collagen crosslinks corrected for creatinine (NTx/Cr) was assessed at 12 weeks as an indicator of efficacy.Results: The percentages of subjects reporting an upper GI tract adverse event in the alendronate 70 mg once weekly group (9.8%) and the placebo group (9.4%) were similar. The risk difference between the two treatment groups (alendronate minus placebo) was 0.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), –5.1%, 5.9%]. Percentages of subjects who discontinued due to a drug-related upper GI adverse event were also similar (alendronate 2.7%; placebo 2.2%; risk difference 0.4%, 95% CI, –2.4, 3.3). The overall tolerability profile of alendronate 70 mg once weekly, as measured by the percentage of subjects reporting any adverse event, was similar to that of placebo (risk difference 2.1%, 95% CI –6.9,11.0). There was a significant 43.3% (95% CI, –47.9%, –38.3%) decrease from baseline in urinary NTx/Cr in the alendronate group compared with an 8.0% (95% CI, 1.4%, 15.0%) increase in the placebo group at Week 12Conclusion: Alendronate 70 mg administered once weekly to women and men with osteoporosis has an upper GI and overall tolerability profile similar to that of placebo.

Tolerability of Once-Weekly Alendronate in Patients With Osteoporosis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

To compare the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract tolerability of once-weekly oral alendronate, 70 mg, and placebo. This was a 12-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The first patient initiated treatment on June 5, 2000, and the last patient completed treatment on March 1, 2001. The study enrolled 450 postmenopausal women and men with osteoporosis (224 took alendronate, 226 took placebo) who were ambulatory and community dwelling at 48 outpatient study centers in the United States. By design, approximately half of the patients were naive to bisphosphonates. The primary end point was upper GI tract tolerability based on the incidence of any upper GI tract adverse events. Secondary end points included the number of discontinuations due to drug-related upper GI tract adverse events and the change from baseline in bone resorption, assessed by the urinary N-telopeptide-creatinine ratio at 12 weeks. A subgroup analysis of the primary and secondary end points was performed on the patients stratified by prior bisphosphonate use. The safety and tolerability of the weekly alendronate and placebo regimens were captured as clinical and laboratory adverse events. A total of 11% of the alendronate patients and 13% of the placebo patients reported an upper GI tract adverse event. Discontinuations due to drug-related upper GI tract adverse events occurred in 3% of alendronate patients and 1% of placebo patients. The differences between the treatment groups for the primary and secondary end points were not significant. For the primary end point, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference was well within the prespecified 14% comparability bound (-2.2%; 95% confidence interval, -8.3% to 3.9%). The overall incidence of upper GI tract adverse events was lower in the subgroup of patients with prior bisphosphonate exposure (8%) than in those who were bisphosphonate naive (16%). However, regardless of prior bisphosphonate exposure, the incidence of upper GI tract adverse events was similar between the alendronate and placebo patients. The urinary N-telopeptide-creatinine ratio showed a significant decrease in the alendronate patients (72% of baseline, P<.001) compared with a slight increase in the placebo patients (106% of baseline) at week 12. In this 3-month study, the incidence of upper GI tract adverse events in patients treated with once-weekly alendronate, 70 mg, was comparable to that with placebo.