Trial reportAlimentary pharmacology & therapeutics2020
Randomised clinical trial: minesapride vs placebo for irritable bowel syndrome with predominant constipation.
Trial report in Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- Randomised clinical trial: minesapride vs placebo for irritable bowel syndrome with predominant constipation.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2020Trial
- Effect of Tryptophan Restriction in the Therapy of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: a Systematic Review.International journal of general medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAgonists of 5-hydroxytryptamine 4 receptor are potential agents for irritable bowel syndrome with predominant constipation (IBS-C). However, only tegaserod has been approved for a very limited population in the US.
aimTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of minesapride in patients with Rome IV defined IBS-C.
methodsA double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study was performed. Overall, 411 patients were randomised to receive minesapride at 10, 20 or 40 mg/d, or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was Food and Drug Administration (FDA) composite endpoint (responder: a patient who reported an increase in one or more complete spontaneous bowel movements from baseline and improvement of ≥30% from baseline in weekly average of worst abdominal pain score, both in the same week for ≥6/12 weeks).
resultsThe FDA composite responder rate was 13.6% (14/103) in the placebo group, 13.6% (14/103) in the 10 mg group, 19.2% (20/104) in the 20 mg group and 14.9% (15/101) in the 40 mg group, and no dose-response relationship was found. A greater percentage of minesapride 40 mg-treated patients than placebo-treated patients met both responder requirements for ≥9/12 weeks as the stricter composite evaluation (P < 0.05). Furthermore, minesapride 40 mg significantly increased SBM frequency compared with placebo (adjusted P < 0.001 at Week 12). The most common adverse event was mild diarrhoea.
conclusionsMinesapride was safe and well-tolerated. Although the primary endpoint was negative, minesapride 40 mg is likely to improve the stricter composite endpoint and SBM frequency. Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center Number: Japic CTI-163459.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.