Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25916220›Full record

Trial reportThe American journal of gastroenterology2015

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of lubiprostone for opioid-induced constipation in chronic noncancer pain.

M Mazen Jamal, Atoya B Adams, Jan-Peter Jansen, Lynn R Webster

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07277907 (Efficacy and Safety of Lubiprostone in the Treatment of Slow Transit Constipation), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
13.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07277907 phase3recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Efficacy and Safety of Lubiprostone in the Treatment of Slow Transit Constipation: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorThird Military Medical UniversityRan2025 to 2027Enrolled346ConditionsSlow Transit Constipation, PharmacotherapyArmsLubiprostone, Polyethylene glycol (PEG )
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 100 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. The Efficacy of Lubiprostone in Patients of Constipation: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Eicosanoids in the gastrointestinal tract.British journal of pharmacology · 2019
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M Mazen Jamal1] Department of Internal Medicine, Long Beach VA Medical Center, Long Beach, California, USA [2] Department of Medicine, UCI College of Medicine, Irvine, California, USA.
Atoya B AdamsAB Clinical Trials, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
Jan-Peter JansenSZ Schmerzzentrum Berlin GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Lynn R WebsterPRA Health Sciences, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Long Beach Medical Center · USPRA Health Sciences · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis multicenter, phase 3 trial evaluated oral lubiprostone for constipation associated with non-methadone opioids in patients with chronic noncancer-related pain.

methodsAdults with opioid-induced constipation (OIC; <3 spontaneous bowel movements [SBMs] per week) were randomized 1:1 to double-blind lubiprostone 24 μg or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the overall SBM response rate. Responders had at least moderate response (≥1 SBM improvement over baseline frequency) in all treatment weeks with available observed data, as well as full response (≥3 SBMs per week) for at least 9 of the 12 treatment weeks.

resultsIn total, 431 patients were randomized; 212 each received lubiprostone and placebo, and 7 were not treated. Overall, the SBM response rate was significantly higher for patients treated with lubiprostone vs. placebo (27.1 vs. 18.9%, respectively; P=0.030). Overall mean change from baseline in SBM frequency was significantly greater with lubiprostone vs. placebo (3.2 vs. 2.4, respectively; P=0.001). The median time to first SBM was significantly shorter with lubiprostone vs. placebo (23.5 vs. 37.7 h, respectively; P=0.004). Compared with placebo, the patients treated with lubiprostone exhibited significant improvements in straining (P=0.004), stool consistency (P<0.001), and constipation severity (P=0.010). No significant differences were observed in quality-of-life measures or the use of rescue medication; however, the percentage of patients who used rescue medication was consistently lower in the lubiprostone group than in the placebo group at months 1 (34.9 vs. 37.7%), 2 (23.4 vs. 26.6%), and 3 (20.5 vs. 22.0%). Adverse events (AEs) >5% were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain (lubiprostone: 11.3, 9.9, 4.2, and 7.1%, respectively; placebo, 3.8, 4.7, 5.2, and 0%, respectively). None of the serious AEs (lubiprostone, 3.3%; placebo, 2.8%) were related to lubiprostone.

conclusionsLubiprostone significantly improved symptoms of OIC and was well tolerated in patients with chronic noncancer pain.

Indexed as

AdultAlprostadilAnalgesics, OpioidChloride Channel AgonistsChronic PainConstipationDefecationDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansLubiprostoneMaleMiddle AgedQuality of LifeTime FactorsAlprostadilAnalgesics, OpioidChloride Channel AgonistsLubiprostone

Identifiers

PMID25916220
PMCPMC4424379
OpenAlexW2009275234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.