Video

While constipation is one of the most common symptoms managed by practicing gastroenterologists, it can also be among the most challenging. As a presenting complaint, constipation manifests with widely varying degrees of severity and may be seen in all age groups, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Its implications can include chronic and serious functional impairment as well as protracted and often excessive health care utilization. A growing number of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions have become available and proven to be effective when appropriately deployed. As such, health care providers and particularly gastroenterologists should strive to develop logical and efficient strategies for addressing this common disorder.

Clinical importance

While there are a variety of etiologies for constipation (Table 1), a large proportion of chronic cases fall within the framework of functional gastrointestinal disorders, a category with a substantial burden of disease across the population. Prevalence estimates vary, but constipation likely affects between 12% and 20% of the North American population.¹ Research has demonstrated significant health care expenditures associated with chronic constipation management; U.S. estimates suggest direct costs on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, roughly half of which are attributable to inpatient care.² The financial burden of constipation also includes indirect costs associated with absenteeism as well as the risks of hospitalization and invasive procedures.³

Physical and emotional complications can be likewise significant and affect all age groups, from newborns to patients in the last days of life. Hirschsprung’s disease, for example, can lead to life-threatening sequelae in infancy, such as spontaneous perforation or enterocolitis, or more prolonged functional impairments when it remains undiagnosed. Severe constipation in childhood can lead to encopresis, translating in turn into ostracism and impaired social functioning. Fecal incontinence associated with overflow diarrhea is common and debilitating, particularly in the elderly population.
 

The potential mechanical complications of constipation lead to its overlap with a variety of other gastrointestinal complaints. For example, the difficulties of passing inspissated stool can provoke lower gastrointestinal bleeding from irritated hemorrhoids, anal fissures, stercoral ulcers, or prolapsed rectal tissue. Retained stool can also lead to upper gastrointestinal symptoms such as postprandial bloating or early satiety.⁴ Delayed fecal discharge can promote an increase in fermentative microbiota, associated in turn with the production of short-chain fatty acids, methane, and other gaseous byproducts.

The initial assessment

History

Taking an appropriate history is an essential step toward achieving a successful outcome. Presenting concerns related to constipation can range from hard, infrequent, or small-volume stools; abdominal or rectal pain associated with the process of elimination; and bloating, nausea, or early satiety. A sound diagnosis requires a keen understanding of what patients mean when they indicate that they are constipated, an accurate assessment of its impact on quality of life, and a careful inventory of potentially associated complications.

It is critical to define the duration of the problem. Not infrequently, patients will focus on recent events while failing to reveal that altered bowel habits or other functional symptoms have been problematic for years. Reminding the patients to “begin at the beginning” can aid enormously in contextualizing their complaints. Individuals with longstanding symptoms and previously negative evaluations are much less likely to present with a new organic disease than are those in whom symptoms have truly arisen de novo.

Defining constipation by frequency of bowel eliminations alone has proved inaccurate at predicting actual severity. This is in part because the bowel movement frequency varies widely in healthy individuals (anywhere from thrice daily to once every 3 days) and in part because the primary indicator of effective evacuation is not frequency but volume – a much more difficult quantity for patients to gauge.⁵ The Bristol Stool Scale is a simple, standardized tool that more accurately evaluates the presence or absence of colonic dysfunction. For example, patients passing Type 1-2 (hard or lumpy) stools often have an element of constipation that needs to be addressed.⁶ However, the interpretation of stool consistency assessments is still aided by awareness of both frequency and volume. A patient passing multiple small-volume Type 6-7 (loose or watery) stools may be the most constipated, presenting with overflow or paradoxical diarrhea attributable to fecal impaction.

Physical examination

An expert physical exam is another essential aspect of the initial assessment. Alarm features can be elicited in this context as well via signs of pallor, weight loss, blood in the stool, physical abuse, or advanced psychological distress. Attention should also be paid to signs of a systemic disorder that might be associated with gastrointestinal dysmotility including previously unrecognized signs of Raynaud’s syndrome, sclerodactyly, amyloidosis, surgical scars, and joint hypermobility.^7,8 Abdominal bloating, a frequently vague symptomatic complaint, can be correlated with the presence or absence of distention as perceived by the patient and/or the examiner.⁹

Any initial evaluation of constipation should also include a detailed digital rectal exam. A complete examination should include a careful visual assessment of the perianal region for external lesions and of the degree and directional appropriateness of pelvic floor excursion (perineal elevation and descent) during squeeze and simulated defecation maneuvers, respectively. Digital examination should include palpation for the presence or absence of pain as well as stool, blood, or masses in the rectal vault, as well as an assessment of sphincter tone at baseline, with squeeze, and with simulated defecation. Rectal pressure generation with the latter maneuver can also be qualitatively assessed. Research has suggested moderate agreement between the digital rectal examination and formal manometric evaluation in diagnosing dyssynergic defecation, underscoring the former’s utility in guiding initial management decisions.¹⁰

Testing

It is reasonable to exclude metabolic, inflammatory, or other secondary etiologies of constipation in patients in whom history or examination raises suspicion. Likewise, colonoscopy should be considered in patients with alarm features or who are due for age-appropriate screening. That said, in the absence of risk factors or ancillary signs and symptoms, a detailed diagnostic work-up is often unnecessary. The AGA’s Medical Position Statement on Constipation recommends a complete blood count as the only test to be ordered on a standard basis in the work-up of constipation.¹¹

In patients new to one’s practice, the diligent retrieval of prior records is one of the most efficient ways to avoid wasting health care resources. Locating an old abdominal radiograph that demonstrates extensive retained stool can not only secure the diagnosis for vague symptomatic complaints but also obviate the need for more extensive testing. One should instead consider how symptom duration and the associated changes in objectives measures such as weight and laboratory parameters can be used to justify or refute the need for repeating costly or invasive studies.

It is important to consider the potential contribution of defecatory dyssynergy to chronic constipation early in a patient’s presentation, and to return to this possibility in the future if initial therapeutic interventions are unsuccessful. An abnormal qualitative assessment on digital rectal examination should trigger a more formal characterization of the patient’s defecatory mechanics via anorectal manometry (ARM) and balloon expulsion testing (BET). Likewise, a lack of response to initial pharmacotherapy should prompt suspicion for outlet dysfunction, which can be queried with functional testing even if a rectal examination is qualitatively unrevealing.

Initial approach to the chronically constipated patient

The aforementioned AGA Medical Position Statement provides a helpful algorithm regarding the diagnostic approach to constipation (Figure 1). In the absence of concern for secondary etiologies of constipation, an initial therapeutic trial of dietary, lifestyle, and medication-based intervention is reasonable for mild symptoms. Patients should be encouraged to strive for 25-30 grams of dietary fiber intake per day. For patients unable to reach this goal via high-fiber foods alone, psyllium husk is a popular supplement, but it should be initiated at modest doses to mitigate the risk of bloating. Fiber may be supplemented with the use of osmotic laxatives (e.g., polyethylene glycol) with instructions that the initial dose may be modified as needed to optimal effectiveness. Selective response to rectal therapies (e.g., bisacodyl or glycerin suppositories) over osmotic laxatives may also suggest utility in early queries of outlet dysfunction.

An abdominal radiograph can be helpful not only to diagnose constipation but also to assess the stool burden present at the time of beginning treatment. For patients presenting with a significant degree of fecal loading, an initial bowel cleanse with four liters of osmotically balanced polyethylene glycol can be a useful means of eliminating background fecal impactions that might have mitigated the effectiveness of initial therapies in the past or that might reduce the effectiveness of daily laxative therapy moving forward.

Patients with a diagnosis of defecatory dyssynergy made via ARM/BET should be referred to pelvic floor physical therapy with biofeedback. Recognizing that courses of therapy are highly individualized in practice, randomized controlled trials suggest symptom improvement in 70%-80% of patients, with the majority also demonstrating maintenance of response.¹² Biofeedback appears to be an essential component of this modality based on meta-analysis data and should be requested specifically by the referring provider.¹³

Pharmacologic agents

For those patients with more severe initial presentations or whose symptoms persist despite initial medical management, there are several pharmacologic agents that may be considered on a prescription basis (Table 2). Linaclotide, a minimally absorbed guanylate cyclase agonist, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) and chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC). Improvements in constipation tend to occur over a slightly shorter timeline than in abdominal pain, though both have been demonstrated in comparison to placebo.^14,15 Plecanatide, a newer agent with a similar mechanism of action, has demonstrated improvements in bowel movement frequency and was recently approved for CIC.¹⁶ Lubiprostone, a chloride channel agonist, has demonstrated benefit for IBS-C and CIC as well, though its side effect profile is more varied, including dose-related nausea in up to 30% of patients.¹⁷

For patients with opioid-induced constipation who cannot wean from the opioid medications, the peripheral acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists may be quite helpful. These include injectable as well as oral formulations (e.g., methylnaltrexone and naloxegol, respectively) with additional agents under active investigation in particular clinical subsets (e.g., naldemedine for patients with cancer-related pain).^18,19 Prucalopride, a selective serotonin receptor agonist, has also demonstrated benefit for constipation; it is available abroad but not yet approved for use in the United States.²⁰ Prucalopride shares its primary mechanism of action (selective agonism of the 5HT4 serotonin receptor) with cisapride, a previously quite popular gastrointestinal motility agent that was subsequently withdrawn from the U.S. market because of arrhythmia risk.²¹ This risk is likely attributable to cisapride’s dual binding affinity for potassium channels, a feature that prucalopride does not share; as such, cardiotoxicity is not an active concern with the latter agent.²²

Still other pharmacologic agents with novel mechanisms of action are currently under investigation. Tenapanor, an inhibitor of a particular sodium/potassium exchanger in the gut lumen, mitigates intestinal sodium absorption, which increases fluid volume and transit. A recent phase 2 study demonstrated significantly increased stool frequency relative to placebo in patients with IBS-C.²³ Elobixibat, an ileal bile acid transport inhibitor, promotes colonic retention of bile acids and, in placebo-controlled studies, has led to accelerated colonic transit and an increased number of spontaneous bowel movements in patients with CIC.²⁴

Persistent constipation

In cases of refractory constipation (in practical terms, symptoms that persist despite trials of escalating medical therapy over at least 6 weeks), it is worth revisiting the question of etiology. Querying defecatory dyssynergy via ARM/BET, if not pursued prior to trials of newer pharmacologic agents, should certainly be explored in the event that such trials fail. Inconclusive results of ARM and BET testing, or BET abnormalities that persist despite a course of physical therapy with biofeedback, may raise suspicion for pelvic organ prolapse, which may be formally evaluated with defecography. Additional testing for metabolic or structural predispositions toward constipation may also be reasonable at this juncture.

Formal colonic transit testing via radio-opaque markers, scintigraphy, or the wireless motility capsule is often inaccurate in the setting of dyssynergic defecation and should be pursued only after this entity has been excluded or successfully treated.²⁵ While there are not many practical distinctions at present in the therapeutic management of slow-transit versus normal-transit constipation, the use of novel medications with an explicitly prokinetic mechanism of action may be reasonable to consider in the setting of a document delay in colonic transit. Such delays can also help justify further specialized diagnostic testing (e.g., colonic manometry), and, in rare refractory cases, surgical intervention.

Consideration of colectomy should be reserved for highly selected patients with delayed colonic transit, normal defecatory mechanics, and the absence of potentially explanatory background conditions (e.g., connective tissue disease). Clear evidence of an underlying colonic myopathy or neuropathy may militate in favor of a more targeted surgical intervention (e.g., subtotal colectomy) or guide one’s clinical evaluation toward alternative systemic diagnoses. A diverting loop ileostomy with interval assessment of symptoms may be useful to clarify the potential benefits of colectomy while preserving the option of operative reversal. Proximal transit delays should be definitively excluded before pursuing colonic resections given evidence that multisegment transit delays portend significantly worse postoperative outcomes.²⁶

Conclusion

Constipation is a common, sometimes confusing presenting complaint and the variety of established and emergent options for diagnosis and therapy can lend themselves to haphazard application. Patients and providers both are well served by a clinical approach, rooted in a comprehensive history and examination, that begins to organize these options in thoughtful sequence.



Dr. Ahuja is assistant professor of clinical medicine, division of gastroenterology; Dr. Reynolds is professor of clinical medicine, and director of the program in neurogastroenterology and motility, division of gastroenterology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

References

1. Higgins P.D., Johanson J.F. Epidemiology of constipation in North America: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004 Apr;99(4):750-9. PubMed PMID: 15089911.

2. Martin B.C., Barghout V., Cerulli A. Direct medical costs of constipation in the United States. Manage Care Interface. 2006 Dec;19(12):43-9. PubMed PMID: 17274481.

3. Sun S.X., Dibonaventura M., Purayidathil F.W., et al. Impact of chronic constipation on health-related quality of life, work productivity, and healthcare resource use: an analysis of the National Health and Wellness Survey. Dig Dis Sc. 2011 Sep;56(9):2688-95. PubMed PMID: 21380761.

4. Heidelbaugh J.J., Stelwagon M., Miller S.A., et al. The spectrum of constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome and chronic idiopathic constipation: US survey assessing symptoms, care seeking, and disease burden. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Apr;110(4):580-7.

5. Mitsuhashi S., Ballou S., Jiang Z.G., et al. Characterizing normal bowel frequency and consistency in a representative sample of adults in the United States (NHANES). Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Aug 01. PubMed PMID: 28762379.

6. Saad R.J., Rao S.S., Koch K.L., et al. Do stool form and frequency correlate with whole-gut and colonic transit? Results from a multicenter study in constipated individuals and healthy controls. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010 Feb;105(2):403-11. PubMed PMID: 19888202.

7. Castori M., Morlino S., Pascolini G., et al. Gastrointestinal and nutritional issues in joint hypermobility syndrome/Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, hypermobility type. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C, Semin Med Genet. 2015 Mar;169C(1):54-75. PubMed PMID: 25821092.

8. Nagaraja V., McMahan Z.H., Getzug T., Khanna D. Management of gastrointestinal involvement in scleroderma. Curr Treatm Opt Rheumatol. 2015 Mar 01;1(1):82-105. PubMed PMID: 26005632. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4437639.

9. Malagelada J.R., Accarino A., Azpiroz F. Bloating and abdominal distension: Old misconceptions and current knowledge. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Aug;112(8):1221-31. PubMed PMID: 28508867.

10. Soh J.S., Lee H.J., Jung K.W., et al. The diagnostic value of a digital rectal examination compared with high-resolution anorectal manometry in patients with chronic constipation and fecal incontinence. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Aug;110(8):1197-204. PubMed PMID: 26032152.

11. American Gastroenterological Association, Bharucha A.E., Dorn S.D., Lembo A., Pressman A. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on constipation. Gastroenterology. 2013 Jan;144(1):211-7. PubMed PMID: 23261064.

12. Skardoon G.R., Khera A.J., Emmanuel A.V., Burgell R.E. Review article: dyssynergic defaecation and biofeedback therapy in the pathophysiology and management of functional constipation. Aliment Pharmacol Therapeut. 2017 Aug;46(4):410-23. PubMed PMID: 28660663.

13. Koh C.E., Young C.J., Young J.M., Solomon M.J. Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of the effectiveness of biofeedback for pelvic floor dysfunction. Br J Surg. 2008 Sep;95(9):1079-87. PubMed PMID: 18655219.

14. Rao S., Lembo A.J., Shiff S.J., et al. A 12-week, randomized, controlled trial with a 4-week randomized withdrawal period to evaluate the efficacy and safety of linaclotide in irritable bowel syndrome with constipation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012 Nov;107(11):1714-24; quiz p 25. PubMed PMID: 22986440. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3504311.

15. Lacy B.E., Schey R., Shiff S.J., et al. Linaclotide in chronic idiopathic constipation patients with moderate to severe abdominal bloating: A randomized, controlled trial. PloS One. 2015;10(7):e0134349. PubMed PMID: 26222318. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4519259.

16. Miner P.B., Jr., Koltun W.D., Wiener G.J., et al. A randomized phase III clinical trial of plecanatide, a uroguanylin analog, in patients with chronic idiopathic constipation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Apr;112(4):613-21. PubMed PMID: 28169285. Pubmed Central PMCID: 5415706.

17. Johanson J.F., Drossman D.A., Panas R., Wahle A., Ueno R. Clinical trial: phase 2 study of lubiprostone for irritable bowel syndrome with constipation. Aliment Pharmacol Therapeut. 2008 Apr;27(8):685-96. PubMed PMID: 18248656.

18. Chey W.D., Webster L., Sostek M., Lappalainen J., Barker P.N., Tack J. Naloxegol for opioid-induced constipation in patients with noncancer pain. N Engl J Med. 2014 Jun 19;370(25):2387-96. PubMed PMID: 24896818.

19. Katakami N., Oda K., Tauchi K., et al. Phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of naldemedine for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jun 10;35(17):1921-8. PubMed PMID: 28445097.

20. Sajid M.S., Hebbar M., Baig M.K., Li A., Philipose Z. Use of prucalopride for chronic constipation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized, controlled trials. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016 Jul 30;22(3):412-22. PubMed PMID: 27127190. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4930296.

21. Quigley E.M. Cisapride: What can we learn from the rise and fall of a prokinetic? J Dig Dis. 2011 Jun;12(3):147-56. PubMed PMID: 21615867.

22. Conlon K., De Maeyer J.H., Bruce C., et al. Nonclinical cardiovascular studies of prucalopride, a highly selective 5-hydroxytryptamine 4 receptor agonist. J Pharmacol Exp Therapeut. 2017 Nov; doi: 10.1124/jpet.117.244079 [epub ahead of print].

23. Chey W.D., Lembo A.J., Rosenbaum D.P. Tenapanor treatment of patients with constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: a phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled efficacy and safety trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112:763-74.

24. Simren M., Bajor A., Gillberg P-G, Rudling M., Abrahamsson H. Randomised clinical trial: the ileal bile acid transporter inhibitor A3309 vs. placebo in patients with chronic idiopathic constipation – a double-blind study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011 Jul;34(1):41-50.

25. Zarate N., Knowles C.H., Newell M., et al. In patients with slow transit constipation, the pattern of colonic transit delay does not differentiate between those with and without impaired rectal evacuation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008 Feb;103(2):427-34. PubMed PMID: 18070233.

26. Redmond J.M., Smith G.W., Barofsky I., et al. Physiological tests to predict long-term outcome of total abdominal colectomy for intractable constipation. Am J Gastroenterol. 1995 May;90(5):748-53. PubMed PMID: 7733081.

While constipation is one of the most common symptoms managed by practicing gastroenterologists, it can also be among the most challenging. As a presenting complaint, constipation manifests with widely varying degrees of severity and may be seen in all age groups, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Its implications can include chronic and serious functional impairment as well as protracted and often excessive health care utilization. A growing number of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions have become available and proven to be effective when appropriately deployed. As such, health care providers and particularly gastroenterologists should strive to develop logical and efficient strategies for addressing this common disorder.

Clinical importance

While there are a variety of etiologies for constipation (Table 1), a large proportion of chronic cases fall within the framework of functional gastrointestinal disorders, a category with a substantial burden of disease across the population. Prevalence estimates vary, but constipation likely affects between 12% and 20% of the North American population.¹ Research has demonstrated significant health care expenditures associated with chronic constipation management; U.S. estimates suggest direct costs on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, roughly half of which are attributable to inpatient care.² The financial burden of constipation also includes indirect costs associated with absenteeism as well as the risks of hospitalization and invasive procedures.³

Physical and emotional complications can be likewise significant and affect all age groups, from newborns to patients in the last days of life. Hirschsprung’s disease, for example, can lead to life-threatening sequelae in infancy, such as spontaneous perforation or enterocolitis, or more prolonged functional impairments when it remains undiagnosed. Severe constipation in childhood can lead to encopresis, translating in turn into ostracism and impaired social functioning. Fecal incontinence associated with overflow diarrhea is common and debilitating, particularly in the elderly population.
 

The potential mechanical complications of constipation lead to its overlap with a variety of other gastrointestinal complaints. For example, the difficulties of passing inspissated stool can provoke lower gastrointestinal bleeding from irritated hemorrhoids, anal fissures, stercoral ulcers, or prolapsed rectal tissue. Retained stool can also lead to upper gastrointestinal symptoms such as postprandial bloating or early satiety.⁴ Delayed fecal discharge can promote an increase in fermentative microbiota, associated in turn with the production of short-chain fatty acids, methane, and other gaseous byproducts.

The initial assessment

History

Taking an appropriate history is an essential step toward achieving a successful outcome. Presenting concerns related to constipation can range from hard, infrequent, or small-volume stools; abdominal or rectal pain associated with the process of elimination; and bloating, nausea, or early satiety. A sound diagnosis requires a keen understanding of what patients mean when they indicate that they are constipated, an accurate assessment of its impact on quality of life, and a careful inventory of potentially associated complications.

It is critical to define the duration of the problem. Not infrequently, patients will focus on recent events while failing to reveal that altered bowel habits or other functional symptoms have been problematic for years. Reminding the patients to “begin at the beginning” can aid enormously in contextualizing their complaints. Individuals with longstanding symptoms and previously negative evaluations are much less likely to present with a new organic disease than are those in whom symptoms have truly arisen de novo.

Defining constipation by frequency of bowel eliminations alone has proved inaccurate at predicting actual severity. This is in part because the bowel movement frequency varies widely in healthy individuals (anywhere from thrice daily to once every 3 days) and in part because the primary indicator of effective evacuation is not frequency but volume – a much more difficult quantity for patients to gauge.⁵ The Bristol Stool Scale is a simple, standardized tool that more accurately evaluates the presence or absence of colonic dysfunction. For example, patients passing Type 1-2 (hard or lumpy) stools often have an element of constipation that needs to be addressed.⁶ However, the interpretation of stool consistency assessments is still aided by awareness of both frequency and volume. A patient passing multiple small-volume Type 6-7 (loose or watery) stools may be the most constipated, presenting with overflow or paradoxical diarrhea attributable to fecal impaction.

Physical examination

An expert physical exam is another essential aspect of the initial assessment. Alarm features can be elicited in this context as well via signs of pallor, weight loss, blood in the stool, physical abuse, or advanced psychological distress. Attention should also be paid to signs of a systemic disorder that might be associated with gastrointestinal dysmotility including previously unrecognized signs of Raynaud’s syndrome, sclerodactyly, amyloidosis, surgical scars, and joint hypermobility.^7,8 Abdominal bloating, a frequently vague symptomatic complaint, can be correlated with the presence or absence of distention as perceived by the patient and/or the examiner.⁹

Any initial evaluation of constipation should also include a detailed digital rectal exam. A complete examination should include a careful visual assessment of the perianal region for external lesions and of the degree and directional appropriateness of pelvic floor excursion (perineal elevation and descent) during squeeze and simulated defecation maneuvers, respectively. Digital examination should include palpation for the presence or absence of pain as well as stool, blood, or masses in the rectal vault, as well as an assessment of sphincter tone at baseline, with squeeze, and with simulated defecation. Rectal pressure generation with the latter maneuver can also be qualitatively assessed. Research has suggested moderate agreement between the digital rectal examination and formal manometric evaluation in diagnosing dyssynergic defecation, underscoring the former’s utility in guiding initial management decisions.¹⁰

Testing

It is reasonable to exclude metabolic, inflammatory, or other secondary etiologies of constipation in patients in whom history or examination raises suspicion. Likewise, colonoscopy should be considered in patients with alarm features or who are due for age-appropriate screening. That said, in the absence of risk factors or ancillary signs and symptoms, a detailed diagnostic work-up is often unnecessary. The AGA’s Medical Position Statement on Constipation recommends a complete blood count as the only test to be ordered on a standard basis in the work-up of constipation.¹¹

In patients new to one’s practice, the diligent retrieval of prior records is one of the most efficient ways to avoid wasting health care resources. Locating an old abdominal radiograph that demonstrates extensive retained stool can not only secure the diagnosis for vague symptomatic complaints but also obviate the need for more extensive testing. One should instead consider how symptom duration and the associated changes in objectives measures such as weight and laboratory parameters can be used to justify or refute the need for repeating costly or invasive studies.

It is important to consider the potential contribution of defecatory dyssynergy to chronic constipation early in a patient’s presentation, and to return to this possibility in the future if initial therapeutic interventions are unsuccessful. An abnormal qualitative assessment on digital rectal examination should trigger a more formal characterization of the patient’s defecatory mechanics via anorectal manometry (ARM) and balloon expulsion testing (BET). Likewise, a lack of response to initial pharmacotherapy should prompt suspicion for outlet dysfunction, which can be queried with functional testing even if a rectal examination is qualitatively unrevealing.

Initial approach to the chronically constipated patient

The aforementioned AGA Medical Position Statement provides a helpful algorithm regarding the diagnostic approach to constipation (Figure 1). In the absence of concern for secondary etiologies of constipation, an initial therapeutic trial of dietary, lifestyle, and medication-based intervention is reasonable for mild symptoms. Patients should be encouraged to strive for 25-30 grams of dietary fiber intake per day. For patients unable to reach this goal via high-fiber foods alone, psyllium husk is a popular supplement, but it should be initiated at modest doses to mitigate the risk of bloating. Fiber may be supplemented with the use of osmotic laxatives (e.g., polyethylene glycol) with instructions that the initial dose may be modified as needed to optimal effectiveness. Selective response to rectal therapies (e.g., bisacodyl or glycerin suppositories) over osmotic laxatives may also suggest utility in early queries of outlet dysfunction.

An abdominal radiograph can be helpful not only to diagnose constipation but also to assess the stool burden present at the time of beginning treatment. For patients presenting with a significant degree of fecal loading, an initial bowel cleanse with four liters of osmotically balanced polyethylene glycol can be a useful means of eliminating background fecal impactions that might have mitigated the effectiveness of initial therapies in the past or that might reduce the effectiveness of daily laxative therapy moving forward.

Patients with a diagnosis of defecatory dyssynergy made via ARM/BET should be referred to pelvic floor physical therapy with biofeedback. Recognizing that courses of therapy are highly individualized in practice, randomized controlled trials suggest symptom improvement in 70%-80% of patients, with the majority also demonstrating maintenance of response.¹² Biofeedback appears to be an essential component of this modality based on meta-analysis data and should be requested specifically by the referring provider.¹³

Pharmacologic agents

For those patients with more severe initial presentations or whose symptoms persist despite initial medical management, there are several pharmacologic agents that may be considered on a prescription basis (Table 2). Linaclotide, a minimally absorbed guanylate cyclase agonist, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) and chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC). Improvements in constipation tend to occur over a slightly shorter timeline than in abdominal pain, though both have been demonstrated in comparison to placebo.^14,15 Plecanatide, a newer agent with a similar mechanism of action, has demonstrated improvements in bowel movement frequency and was recently approved for CIC.¹⁶ Lubiprostone, a chloride channel agonist, has demonstrated benefit for IBS-C and CIC as well, though its side effect profile is more varied, including dose-related nausea in up to 30% of patients.¹⁷

For patients with opioid-induced constipation who cannot wean from the opioid medications, the peripheral acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists may be quite helpful. These include injectable as well as oral formulations (e.g., methylnaltrexone and naloxegol, respectively) with additional agents under active investigation in particular clinical subsets (e.g., naldemedine for patients with cancer-related pain).^18,19 Prucalopride, a selective serotonin receptor agonist, has also demonstrated benefit for constipation; it is available abroad but not yet approved for use in the United States.²⁰ Prucalopride shares its primary mechanism of action (selective agonism of the 5HT4 serotonin receptor) with cisapride, a previously quite popular gastrointestinal motility agent that was subsequently withdrawn from the U.S. market because of arrhythmia risk.²¹ This risk is likely attributable to cisapride’s dual binding affinity for potassium channels, a feature that prucalopride does not share; as such, cardiotoxicity is not an active concern with the latter agent.²²

Still other pharmacologic agents with novel mechanisms of action are currently under investigation. Tenapanor, an inhibitor of a particular sodium/potassium exchanger in the gut lumen, mitigates intestinal sodium absorption, which increases fluid volume and transit. A recent phase 2 study demonstrated significantly increased stool frequency relative to placebo in patients with IBS-C.²³ Elobixibat, an ileal bile acid transport inhibitor, promotes colonic retention of bile acids and, in placebo-controlled studies, has led to accelerated colonic transit and an increased number of spontaneous bowel movements in patients with CIC.²⁴

Persistent constipation

In cases of refractory constipation (in practical terms, symptoms that persist despite trials of escalating medical therapy over at least 6 weeks), it is worth revisiting the question of etiology. Querying defecatory dyssynergy via ARM/BET, if not pursued prior to trials of newer pharmacologic agents, should certainly be explored in the event that such trials fail. Inconclusive results of ARM and BET testing, or BET abnormalities that persist despite a course of physical therapy with biofeedback, may raise suspicion for pelvic organ prolapse, which may be formally evaluated with defecography. Additional testing for metabolic or structural predispositions toward constipation may also be reasonable at this juncture.

Formal colonic transit testing via radio-opaque markers, scintigraphy, or the wireless motility capsule is often inaccurate in the setting of dyssynergic defecation and should be pursued only after this entity has been excluded or successfully treated.²⁵ While there are not many practical distinctions at present in the therapeutic management of slow-transit versus normal-transit constipation, the use of novel medications with an explicitly prokinetic mechanism of action may be reasonable to consider in the setting of a document delay in colonic transit. Such delays can also help justify further specialized diagnostic testing (e.g., colonic manometry), and, in rare refractory cases, surgical intervention.

Consideration of colectomy should be reserved for highly selected patients with delayed colonic transit, normal defecatory mechanics, and the absence of potentially explanatory background conditions (e.g., connective tissue disease). Clear evidence of an underlying colonic myopathy or neuropathy may militate in favor of a more targeted surgical intervention (e.g., subtotal colectomy) or guide one’s clinical evaluation toward alternative systemic diagnoses. A diverting loop ileostomy with interval assessment of symptoms may be useful to clarify the potential benefits of colectomy while preserving the option of operative reversal. Proximal transit delays should be definitively excluded before pursuing colonic resections given evidence that multisegment transit delays portend significantly worse postoperative outcomes.²⁶

Conclusion

Constipation is a common, sometimes confusing presenting complaint and the variety of established and emergent options for diagnosis and therapy can lend themselves to haphazard application. Patients and providers both are well served by a clinical approach, rooted in a comprehensive history and examination, that begins to organize these options in thoughtful sequence.



Dr. Ahuja is assistant professor of clinical medicine, division of gastroenterology; Dr. Reynolds is professor of clinical medicine, and director of the program in neurogastroenterology and motility, division of gastroenterology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

References

1. Higgins P.D., Johanson J.F. Epidemiology of constipation in North America: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004 Apr;99(4):750-9. PubMed PMID: 15089911.

2. Martin B.C., Barghout V., Cerulli A. Direct medical costs of constipation in the United States. Manage Care Interface. 2006 Dec;19(12):43-9. PubMed PMID: 17274481.

3. Sun S.X., Dibonaventura M., Purayidathil F.W., et al. Impact of chronic constipation on health-related quality of life, work productivity, and healthcare resource use: an analysis of the National Health and Wellness Survey. Dig Dis Sc. 2011 Sep;56(9):2688-95. PubMed PMID: 21380761.

4. Heidelbaugh J.J., Stelwagon M., Miller S.A., et al. The spectrum of constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome and chronic idiopathic constipation: US survey assessing symptoms, care seeking, and disease burden. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Apr;110(4):580-7.

5. Mitsuhashi S., Ballou S., Jiang Z.G., et al. Characterizing normal bowel frequency and consistency in a representative sample of adults in the United States (NHANES). Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Aug 01. PubMed PMID: 28762379.

6. Saad R.J., Rao S.S., Koch K.L., et al. Do stool form and frequency correlate with whole-gut and colonic transit? Results from a multicenter study in constipated individuals and healthy controls. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010 Feb;105(2):403-11. PubMed PMID: 19888202.

7. Castori M., Morlino S., Pascolini G., et al. Gastrointestinal and nutritional issues in joint hypermobility syndrome/Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, hypermobility type. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C, Semin Med Genet. 2015 Mar;169C(1):54-75. PubMed PMID: 25821092.

8. Nagaraja V., McMahan Z.H., Getzug T., Khanna D. Management of gastrointestinal involvement in scleroderma. Curr Treatm Opt Rheumatol. 2015 Mar 01;1(1):82-105. PubMed PMID: 26005632. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4437639.

9. Malagelada J.R., Accarino A., Azpiroz F. Bloating and abdominal distension: Old misconceptions and current knowledge. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Aug;112(8):1221-31. PubMed PMID: 28508867.

10. Soh J.S., Lee H.J., Jung K.W., et al. The diagnostic value of a digital rectal examination compared with high-resolution anorectal manometry in patients with chronic constipation and fecal incontinence. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Aug;110(8):1197-204. PubMed PMID: 26032152.

11. American Gastroenterological Association, Bharucha A.E., Dorn S.D., Lembo A., Pressman A. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on constipation. Gastroenterology. 2013 Jan;144(1):211-7. PubMed PMID: 23261064.

12. Skardoon G.R., Khera A.J., Emmanuel A.V., Burgell R.E. Review article: dyssynergic defaecation and biofeedback therapy in the pathophysiology and management of functional constipation. Aliment Pharmacol Therapeut. 2017 Aug;46(4):410-23. PubMed PMID: 28660663.

13. Koh C.E., Young C.J., Young J.M., Solomon M.J. Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of the effectiveness of biofeedback for pelvic floor dysfunction. Br J Surg. 2008 Sep;95(9):1079-87. PubMed PMID: 18655219.

14. Rao S., Lembo A.J., Shiff S.J., et al. A 12-week, randomized, controlled trial with a 4-week randomized withdrawal period to evaluate the efficacy and safety of linaclotide in irritable bowel syndrome with constipation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012 Nov;107(11):1714-24; quiz p 25. PubMed PMID: 22986440. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3504311.

15. Lacy B.E., Schey R., Shiff S.J., et al. Linaclotide in chronic idiopathic constipation patients with moderate to severe abdominal bloating: A randomized, controlled trial. PloS One. 2015;10(7):e0134349. PubMed PMID: 26222318. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4519259.

16. Miner P.B., Jr., Koltun W.D., Wiener G.J., et al. A randomized phase III clinical trial of plecanatide, a uroguanylin analog, in patients with chronic idiopathic constipation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Apr;112(4):613-21. PubMed PMID: 28169285. Pubmed Central PMCID: 5415706.

17. Johanson J.F., Drossman D.A., Panas R., Wahle A., Ueno R. Clinical trial: phase 2 study of lubiprostone for irritable bowel syndrome with constipation. Aliment Pharmacol Therapeut. 2008 Apr;27(8):685-96. PubMed PMID: 18248656.

18. Chey W.D., Webster L., Sostek M., Lappalainen J., Barker P.N., Tack J. Naloxegol for opioid-induced constipation in patients with noncancer pain. N Engl J Med. 2014 Jun 19;370(25):2387-96. PubMed PMID: 24896818.

19. Katakami N., Oda K., Tauchi K., et al. Phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of naldemedine for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jun 10;35(17):1921-8. PubMed PMID: 28445097.

20. Sajid M.S., Hebbar M., Baig M.K., Li A., Philipose Z. Use of prucalopride for chronic constipation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized, controlled trials. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016 Jul 30;22(3):412-22. PubMed PMID: 27127190. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4930296.

21. Quigley E.M. Cisapride: What can we learn from the rise and fall of a prokinetic? J Dig Dis. 2011 Jun;12(3):147-56. PubMed PMID: 21615867.

22. Conlon K., De Maeyer J.H., Bruce C., et al. Nonclinical cardiovascular studies of prucalopride, a highly selective 5-hydroxytryptamine 4 receptor agonist. J Pharmacol Exp Therapeut. 2017 Nov; doi: 10.1124/jpet.117.244079 [epub ahead of print].

23. Chey W.D., Lembo A.J., Rosenbaum D.P. Tenapanor treatment of patients with constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: a phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled efficacy and safety trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112:763-74.

24. Simren M., Bajor A., Gillberg P-G, Rudling M., Abrahamsson H. Randomised clinical trial: the ileal bile acid transporter inhibitor A3309 vs. placebo in patients with chronic idiopathic constipation – a double-blind study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011 Jul;34(1):41-50.

25. Zarate N., Knowles C.H., Newell M., et al. In patients with slow transit constipation, the pattern of colonic transit delay does not differentiate between those with and without impaired rectal evacuation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008 Feb;103(2):427-34. PubMed PMID: 18070233.

26. Redmond J.M., Smith G.W., Barofsky I., et al. Physiological tests to predict long-term outcome of total abdominal colectomy for intractable constipation. Am J Gastroenterol. 1995 May;90(5):748-53. PubMed PMID: 7733081.

While constipation is one of the most common symptoms managed by practicing gastroenterologists, it can also be among the most challenging. As a presenting complaint, constipation manifests with widely varying degrees of severity and may be seen in all age groups, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Its implications can include chronic and serious functional impairment as well as protracted and often excessive health care utilization. A growing number of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions have become available and proven to be effective when appropriately deployed. As such, health care providers and particularly gastroenterologists should strive to develop logical and efficient strategies for addressing this common disorder.

Clinical importance

While there are a variety of etiologies for constipation (Table 1), a large proportion of chronic cases fall within the framework of functional gastrointestinal disorders, a category with a substantial burden of disease across the population. Prevalence estimates vary, but constipation likely affects between 12% and 20% of the North American population.¹ Research has demonstrated significant health care expenditures associated with chronic constipation management; U.S. estimates suggest direct costs on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, roughly half of which are attributable to inpatient care.² The financial burden of constipation also includes indirect costs associated with absenteeism as well as the risks of hospitalization and invasive procedures.³

Physical and emotional complications can be likewise significant and affect all age groups, from newborns to patients in the last days of life. Hirschsprung’s disease, for example, can lead to life-threatening sequelae in infancy, such as spontaneous perforation or enterocolitis, or more prolonged functional impairments when it remains undiagnosed. Severe constipation in childhood can lead to encopresis, translating in turn into ostracism and impaired social functioning. Fecal incontinence associated with overflow diarrhea is common and debilitating, particularly in the elderly population.
 

The potential mechanical complications of constipation lead to its overlap with a variety of other gastrointestinal complaints. For example, the difficulties of passing inspissated stool can provoke lower gastrointestinal bleeding from irritated hemorrhoids, anal fissures, stercoral ulcers, or prolapsed rectal tissue. Retained stool can also lead to upper gastrointestinal symptoms such as postprandial bloating or early satiety.⁴ Delayed fecal discharge can promote an increase in fermentative microbiota, associated in turn with the production of short-chain fatty acids, methane, and other gaseous byproducts.

The initial assessment

History

Taking an appropriate history is an essential step toward achieving a successful outcome. Presenting concerns related to constipation can range from hard, infrequent, or small-volume stools; abdominal or rectal pain associated with the process of elimination; and bloating, nausea, or early satiety. A sound diagnosis requires a keen understanding of what patients mean when they indicate that they are constipated, an accurate assessment of its impact on quality of life, and a careful inventory of potentially associated complications.

It is critical to define the duration of the problem. Not infrequently, patients will focus on recent events while failing to reveal that altered bowel habits or other functional symptoms have been problematic for years. Reminding the patients to “begin at the beginning” can aid enormously in contextualizing their complaints. Individuals with longstanding symptoms and previously negative evaluations are much less likely to present with a new organic disease than are those in whom symptoms have truly arisen de novo.

Defining constipation by frequency of bowel eliminations alone has proved inaccurate at predicting actual severity. This is in part because the bowel movement frequency varies widely in healthy individuals (anywhere from thrice daily to once every 3 days) and in part because the primary indicator of effective evacuation is not frequency but volume – a much more difficult quantity for patients to gauge.⁵ The Bristol Stool Scale is a simple, standardized tool that more accurately evaluates the presence or absence of colonic dysfunction. For example, patients passing Type 1-2 (hard or lumpy) stools often have an element of constipation that needs to be addressed.⁶ However, the interpretation of stool consistency assessments is still aided by awareness of both frequency and volume. A patient passing multiple small-volume Type 6-7 (loose or watery) stools may be the most constipated, presenting with overflow or paradoxical diarrhea attributable to fecal impaction.

Physical examination

An expert physical exam is another essential aspect of the initial assessment. Alarm features can be elicited in this context as well via signs of pallor, weight loss, blood in the stool, physical abuse, or advanced psychological distress. Attention should also be paid to signs of a systemic disorder that might be associated with gastrointestinal dysmotility including previously unrecognized signs of Raynaud’s syndrome, sclerodactyly, amyloidosis, surgical scars, and joint hypermobility.^7,8 Abdominal bloating, a frequently vague symptomatic complaint, can be correlated with the presence or absence of distention as perceived by the patient and/or the examiner.⁹

Any initial evaluation of constipation should also include a detailed digital rectal exam. A complete examination should include a careful visual assessment of the perianal region for external lesions and of the degree and directional appropriateness of pelvic floor excursion (perineal elevation and descent) during squeeze and simulated defecation maneuvers, respectively. Digital examination should include palpation for the presence or absence of pain as well as stool, blood, or masses in the rectal vault, as well as an assessment of sphincter tone at baseline, with squeeze, and with simulated defecation. Rectal pressure generation with the latter maneuver can also be qualitatively assessed. Research has suggested moderate agreement between the digital rectal examination and formal manometric evaluation in diagnosing dyssynergic defecation, underscoring the former’s utility in guiding initial management decisions.¹⁰

Testing

It is reasonable to exclude metabolic, inflammatory, or other secondary etiologies of constipation in patients in whom history or examination raises suspicion. Likewise, colonoscopy should be considered in patients with alarm features or who are due for age-appropriate screening. That said, in the absence of risk factors or ancillary signs and symptoms, a detailed diagnostic work-up is often unnecessary. The AGA’s Medical Position Statement on Constipation recommends a complete blood count as the only test to be ordered on a standard basis in the work-up of constipation.¹¹

In patients new to one’s practice, the diligent retrieval of prior records is one of the most efficient ways to avoid wasting health care resources. Locating an old abdominal radiograph that demonstrates extensive retained stool can not only secure the diagnosis for vague symptomatic complaints but also obviate the need for more extensive testing. One should instead consider how symptom duration and the associated changes in objectives measures such as weight and laboratory parameters can be used to justify or refute the need for repeating costly or invasive studies.

It is important to consider the potential contribution of defecatory dyssynergy to chronic constipation early in a patient’s presentation, and to return to this possibility in the future if initial therapeutic interventions are unsuccessful. An abnormal qualitative assessment on digital rectal examination should trigger a more formal characterization of the patient’s defecatory mechanics via anorectal manometry (ARM) and balloon expulsion testing (BET). Likewise, a lack of response to initial pharmacotherapy should prompt suspicion for outlet dysfunction, which can be queried with functional testing even if a rectal examination is qualitatively unrevealing.

Initial approach to the chronically constipated patient

The aforementioned AGA Medical Position Statement provides a helpful algorithm regarding the diagnostic approach to constipation (Figure 1). In the absence of concern for secondary etiologies of constipation, an initial therapeutic trial of dietary, lifestyle, and medication-based intervention is reasonable for mild symptoms. Patients should be encouraged to strive for 25-30 grams of dietary fiber intake per day. For patients unable to reach this goal via high-fiber foods alone, psyllium husk is a popular supplement, but it should be initiated at modest doses to mitigate the risk of bloating. Fiber may be supplemented with the use of osmotic laxatives (e.g., polyethylene glycol) with instructions that the initial dose may be modified as needed to optimal effectiveness. Selective response to rectal therapies (e.g., bisacodyl or glycerin suppositories) over osmotic laxatives may also suggest utility in early queries of outlet dysfunction.

An abdominal radiograph can be helpful not only to diagnose constipation but also to assess the stool burden present at the time of beginning treatment. For patients presenting with a significant degree of fecal loading, an initial bowel cleanse with four liters of osmotically balanced polyethylene glycol can be a useful means of eliminating background fecal impactions that might have mitigated the effectiveness of initial therapies in the past or that might reduce the effectiveness of daily laxative therapy moving forward.

Patients with a diagnosis of defecatory dyssynergy made via ARM/BET should be referred to pelvic floor physical therapy with biofeedback. Recognizing that courses of therapy are highly individualized in practice, randomized controlled trials suggest symptom improvement in 70%-80% of patients, with the majority also demonstrating maintenance of response.¹² Biofeedback appears to be an essential component of this modality based on meta-analysis data and should be requested specifically by the referring provider.¹³

Pharmacologic agents

For those patients with more severe initial presentations or whose symptoms persist despite initial medical management, there are several pharmacologic agents that may be considered on a prescription basis (Table 2). Linaclotide, a minimally absorbed guanylate cyclase agonist, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) and chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC). Improvements in constipation tend to occur over a slightly shorter timeline than in abdominal pain, though both have been demonstrated in comparison to placebo.^14,15 Plecanatide, a newer agent with a similar mechanism of action, has demonstrated improvements in bowel movement frequency and was recently approved for CIC.¹⁶ Lubiprostone, a chloride channel agonist, has demonstrated benefit for IBS-C and CIC as well, though its side effect profile is more varied, including dose-related nausea in up to 30% of patients.¹⁷

For patients with opioid-induced constipation who cannot wean from the opioid medications, the peripheral acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists may be quite helpful. These include injectable as well as oral formulations (e.g., methylnaltrexone and naloxegol, respectively) with additional agents under active investigation in particular clinical subsets (e.g., naldemedine for patients with cancer-related pain).^18,19 Prucalopride, a selective serotonin receptor agonist, has also demonstrated benefit for constipation; it is available abroad but not yet approved for use in the United States.²⁰ Prucalopride shares its primary mechanism of action (selective agonism of the 5HT4 serotonin receptor) with cisapride, a previously quite popular gastrointestinal motility agent that was subsequently withdrawn from the U.S. market because of arrhythmia risk.²¹ This risk is likely attributable to cisapride’s dual binding affinity for potassium channels, a feature that prucalopride does not share; as such, cardiotoxicity is not an active concern with the latter agent.²²

Still other pharmacologic agents with novel mechanisms of action are currently under investigation. Tenapanor, an inhibitor of a particular sodium/potassium exchanger in the gut lumen, mitigates intestinal sodium absorption, which increases fluid volume and transit. A recent phase 2 study demonstrated significantly increased stool frequency relative to placebo in patients with IBS-C.²³ Elobixibat, an ileal bile acid transport inhibitor, promotes colonic retention of bile acids and, in placebo-controlled studies, has led to accelerated colonic transit and an increased number of spontaneous bowel movements in patients with CIC.²⁴

Persistent constipation

In cases of refractory constipation (in practical terms, symptoms that persist despite trials of escalating medical therapy over at least 6 weeks), it is worth revisiting the question of etiology. Querying defecatory dyssynergy via ARM/BET, if not pursued prior to trials of newer pharmacologic agents, should certainly be explored in the event that such trials fail. Inconclusive results of ARM and BET testing, or BET abnormalities that persist despite a course of physical therapy with biofeedback, may raise suspicion for pelvic organ prolapse, which may be formally evaluated with defecography. Additional testing for metabolic or structural predispositions toward constipation may also be reasonable at this juncture.

Formal colonic transit testing via radio-opaque markers, scintigraphy, or the wireless motility capsule is often inaccurate in the setting of dyssynergic defecation and should be pursued only after this entity has been excluded or successfully treated.²⁵ While there are not many practical distinctions at present in the therapeutic management of slow-transit versus normal-transit constipation, the use of novel medications with an explicitly prokinetic mechanism of action may be reasonable to consider in the setting of a document delay in colonic transit. Such delays can also help justify further specialized diagnostic testing (e.g., colonic manometry), and, in rare refractory cases, surgical intervention.

Consideration of colectomy should be reserved for highly selected patients with delayed colonic transit, normal defecatory mechanics, and the absence of potentially explanatory background conditions (e.g., connective tissue disease). Clear evidence of an underlying colonic myopathy or neuropathy may militate in favor of a more targeted surgical intervention (e.g., subtotal colectomy) or guide one’s clinical evaluation toward alternative systemic diagnoses. A diverting loop ileostomy with interval assessment of symptoms may be useful to clarify the potential benefits of colectomy while preserving the option of operative reversal. Proximal transit delays should be definitively excluded before pursuing colonic resections given evidence that multisegment transit delays portend significantly worse postoperative outcomes.²⁶

Conclusion

Constipation is a common, sometimes confusing presenting complaint and the variety of established and emergent options for diagnosis and therapy can lend themselves to haphazard application. Patients and providers both are well served by a clinical approach, rooted in a comprehensive history and examination, that begins to organize these options in thoughtful sequence.



Dr. Ahuja is assistant professor of clinical medicine, division of gastroenterology; Dr. Reynolds is professor of clinical medicine, and director of the program in neurogastroenterology and motility, division of gastroenterology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

References

1. Higgins P.D., Johanson J.F. Epidemiology of constipation in North America: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004 Apr;99(4):750-9. PubMed PMID: 15089911.

2. Martin B.C., Barghout V., Cerulli A. Direct medical costs of constipation in the United States. Manage Care Interface. 2006 Dec;19(12):43-9. PubMed PMID: 17274481.

3. Sun S.X., Dibonaventura M., Purayidathil F.W., et al. Impact of chronic constipation on health-related quality of life, work productivity, and healthcare resource use: an analysis of the National Health and Wellness Survey. Dig Dis Sc. 2011 Sep;56(9):2688-95. PubMed PMID: 21380761.

4. Heidelbaugh J.J., Stelwagon M., Miller S.A., et al. The spectrum of constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome and chronic idiopathic constipation: US survey assessing symptoms, care seeking, and disease burden. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Apr;110(4):580-7.

5. Mitsuhashi S., Ballou S., Jiang Z.G., et al. Characterizing normal bowel frequency and consistency in a representative sample of adults in the United States (NHANES). Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Aug 01. PubMed PMID: 28762379.

6. Saad R.J., Rao S.S., Koch K.L., et al. Do stool form and frequency correlate with whole-gut and colonic transit? Results from a multicenter study in constipated individuals and healthy controls. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010 Feb;105(2):403-11. PubMed PMID: 19888202.

7. Castori M., Morlino S., Pascolini G., et al. Gastrointestinal and nutritional issues in joint hypermobility syndrome/Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, hypermobility type. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C, Semin Med Genet. 2015 Mar;169C(1):54-75. PubMed PMID: 25821092.

8. Nagaraja V., McMahan Z.H., Getzug T., Khanna D. Management of gastrointestinal involvement in scleroderma. Curr Treatm Opt Rheumatol. 2015 Mar 01;1(1):82-105. PubMed PMID: 26005632. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4437639.

9. Malagelada J.R., Accarino A., Azpiroz F. Bloating and abdominal distension: Old misconceptions and current knowledge. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Aug;112(8):1221-31. PubMed PMID: 28508867.

10. Soh J.S., Lee H.J., Jung K.W., et al. The diagnostic value of a digital rectal examination compared with high-resolution anorectal manometry in patients with chronic constipation and fecal incontinence. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Aug;110(8):1197-204. PubMed PMID: 26032152.

11. American Gastroenterological Association, Bharucha A.E., Dorn S.D., Lembo A., Pressman A. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on constipation. Gastroenterology. 2013 Jan;144(1):211-7. PubMed PMID: 23261064.

12. Skardoon G.R., Khera A.J., Emmanuel A.V., Burgell R.E. Review article: dyssynergic defaecation and biofeedback therapy in the pathophysiology and management of functional constipation. Aliment Pharmacol Therapeut. 2017 Aug;46(4):410-23. PubMed PMID: 28660663.

13. Koh C.E., Young C.J., Young J.M., Solomon M.J. Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of the effectiveness of biofeedback for pelvic floor dysfunction. Br J Surg. 2008 Sep;95(9):1079-87. PubMed PMID: 18655219.

14. Rao S., Lembo A.J., Shiff S.J., et al. A 12-week, randomized, controlled trial with a 4-week randomized withdrawal period to evaluate the efficacy and safety of linaclotide in irritable bowel syndrome with constipation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012 Nov;107(11):1714-24; quiz p 25. PubMed PMID: 22986440. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3504311.

15. Lacy B.E., Schey R., Shiff S.J., et al. Linaclotide in chronic idiopathic constipation patients with moderate to severe abdominal bloating: A randomized, controlled trial. PloS One. 2015;10(7):e0134349. PubMed PMID: 26222318. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4519259.

16. Miner P.B., Jr., Koltun W.D., Wiener G.J., et al. A randomized phase III clinical trial of plecanatide, a uroguanylin analog, in patients with chronic idiopathic constipation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Apr;112(4):613-21. PubMed PMID: 28169285. Pubmed Central PMCID: 5415706.

17. Johanson J.F., Drossman D.A., Panas R., Wahle A., Ueno R. Clinical trial: phase 2 study of lubiprostone for irritable bowel syndrome with constipation. Aliment Pharmacol Therapeut. 2008 Apr;27(8):685-96. PubMed PMID: 18248656.

18. Chey W.D., Webster L., Sostek M., Lappalainen J., Barker P.N., Tack J. Naloxegol for opioid-induced constipation in patients with noncancer pain. N Engl J Med. 2014 Jun 19;370(25):2387-96. PubMed PMID: 24896818.

19. Katakami N., Oda K., Tauchi K., et al. Phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of naldemedine for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jun 10;35(17):1921-8. PubMed PMID: 28445097.

20. Sajid M.S., Hebbar M., Baig M.K., Li A., Philipose Z. Use of prucalopride for chronic constipation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized, controlled trials. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016 Jul 30;22(3):412-22. PubMed PMID: 27127190. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4930296.

21. Quigley E.M. Cisapride: What can we learn from the rise and fall of a prokinetic? J Dig Dis. 2011 Jun;12(3):147-56. PubMed PMID: 21615867.

22. Conlon K., De Maeyer J.H., Bruce C., et al. Nonclinical cardiovascular studies of prucalopride, a highly selective 5-hydroxytryptamine 4 receptor agonist. J Pharmacol Exp Therapeut. 2017 Nov; doi: 10.1124/jpet.117.244079 [epub ahead of print].

23. Chey W.D., Lembo A.J., Rosenbaum D.P. Tenapanor treatment of patients with constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: a phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled efficacy and safety trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112:763-74.

24. Simren M., Bajor A., Gillberg P-G, Rudling M., Abrahamsson H. Randomised clinical trial: the ileal bile acid transporter inhibitor A3309 vs. placebo in patients with chronic idiopathic constipation – a double-blind study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011 Jul;34(1):41-50.

25. Zarate N., Knowles C.H., Newell M., et al. In patients with slow transit constipation, the pattern of colonic transit delay does not differentiate between those with and without impaired rectal evacuation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008 Feb;103(2):427-34. PubMed PMID: 18070233.

26. Redmond J.M., Smith G.W., Barofsky I., et al. Physiological tests to predict long-term outcome of total abdominal colectomy for intractable constipation. Am J Gastroenterol. 1995 May;90(5):748-53. PubMed PMID: 7733081.

The readership of Gastroenterology includes a broad distribution of stakeholders in digestive health, including those with vested interests in clinical practice, education, policy, clinical investigation, and basic research. One of our most critical constituencies, however, is trainees and early-career GIs. In an effort to support such individuals, our editorial team has developed a freshly minted 1-year editorial fellowship for Gastroenterology. The overarching purpose of this fellowship is to mentor an outstanding trainee for future editorial leadership roles in scientific publishing, as a means to promote the interests of trainee and early-career GI constituencies within the AGA and Gastroenterology. This fellowship is available to exceptional second- or third-year fellows through an application process. The intent of this training is to allow the selected applicant to become intimately involved with Gastroenterology’s entire editorial process, including peer review, editorial oversight, manuscript selection for publication, production, and postpublication activities. Our first fellow, Eric Shah, MD, MBA, was selected from a highly competitive pool of exceptional applicants, and began his fellowship on July 1, 2017.

AGA Institute

This year, we have been delighted to work with Dr. Shah as our inaugural Gastroenterology fellow. Dr. Shah has a unique background, having pursued a joint MD and MBA (earning both concurrently), while also following venture-oriented interests in developing GI technology from academia. Dr. Shah began his research career under the mentorship of Mark Pimentel, MD, and Gil Melmed, MD, at Cedars-Sinai as part of a Research Honors Program. Since that time, he has focused on evaluating the comparative efficacy, durability, and harm associated with pharmacotherapy in functional bowel disorders. Dr. Shah was accepted into the GI fellowship training program at the University of Michigan and received a slot on the T32 training grant to study cost-effectiveness and qualitative research techniques to address gaps in the care of functional bowel disorders. His work under the mentorship of William Chey, MD, Ryan Stidham, MD, and Philip S. Schoenfeld, MD, has flourished and culminated in an oral presentation and several posters for DDW 2017, as well as several first-author manuscripts that have been submitted. Dr. Shah has fully embraced the Gastroenterology fellowship and has far surpassed our high expectations for this position.
 

VIDEO SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

In addition to creating an editorial fellowship, our team has also developed other components within the journal that specifically target trainees and early-career GIs. The Mentoring, Education and Training section – initiated in 2011 through the vision and insight of Bishr Omary MD, PhD, and John Del Valle, MD, at the University of Michigan – has been extremely effective in highlighting critical issues relevant to trainees, young faculty, and early-career GIs. Topics have included mentoring advice not only for individuals in academic or private practice careers but also industry careers and midlevel providers. Other topics have included Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education milestones, career advancement for clinician-educators, sex and ethnic diversity, and maintenance of certification, as well as guidance regarding nontraditional funding mechanisms such as philanthropy. Potential future topics will include information about major new public and private funding initiatives, comments and input from National Institutes of Health officials, and reports of funding trends relevant to both physician scientists and clinicians. We are fortunate to have Prateek Sharma, MD, lead this section, and his depth of experience as an exceptional mentor has provided the requisite expertise.

Additionally, we offer a reduction in page charges to junior investigators (within 7 years of fellowship) who are the corresponding authors of exceedingly important original Gastroenterology manuscripts. These manuscripts from junior investigators will be highlighted in both print and online versions of Gastroenterology. We are using the journal to expand electronic access to educational offerings for new technologies, training, self-assessment, and practice improvement to establish the AGA as the ultimate resource for junior academicians and practicing physicians. We are also currently integrating Gastroenterology more closely into other AGA educational efforts that target young physicians, such as the AGA Education and Training Committee.

At Gastroenterology, we are acutely aware of the needs and obstacles facing trainees, young faculty, and early-career GIs. We have boldly adopted a multidimensional approach to provide guidance and opportunities to overcome these challenges, including the creation of the nascent Editorial Fellowship. We welcome applications for the next fellowship, which will be announced by the AGA in the spring of 2018!
 

Dr. Peek is the Mina Wallace Professor of Medicine, Cancer Biology, and Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, and director, division of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. He has no conflicts of interest.

The readership of Gastroenterology includes a broad distribution of stakeholders in digestive health, including those with vested interests in clinical practice, education, policy, clinical investigation, and basic research. One of our most critical constituencies, however, is trainees and early-career GIs. In an effort to support such individuals, our editorial team has developed a freshly minted 1-year editorial fellowship for Gastroenterology. The overarching purpose of this fellowship is to mentor an outstanding trainee for future editorial leadership roles in scientific publishing, as a means to promote the interests of trainee and early-career GI constituencies within the AGA and Gastroenterology. This fellowship is available to exceptional second- or third-year fellows through an application process. The intent of this training is to allow the selected applicant to become intimately involved with Gastroenterology’s entire editorial process, including peer review, editorial oversight, manuscript selection for publication, production, and postpublication activities. Our first fellow, Eric Shah, MD, MBA, was selected from a highly competitive pool of exceptional applicants, and began his fellowship on July 1, 2017.

AGA Institute

This year, we have been delighted to work with Dr. Shah as our inaugural Gastroenterology fellow. Dr. Shah has a unique background, having pursued a joint MD and MBA (earning both concurrently), while also following venture-oriented interests in developing GI technology from academia. Dr. Shah began his research career under the mentorship of Mark Pimentel, MD, and Gil Melmed, MD, at Cedars-Sinai as part of a Research Honors Program. Since that time, he has focused on evaluating the comparative efficacy, durability, and harm associated with pharmacotherapy in functional bowel disorders. Dr. Shah was accepted into the GI fellowship training program at the University of Michigan and received a slot on the T32 training grant to study cost-effectiveness and qualitative research techniques to address gaps in the care of functional bowel disorders. His work under the mentorship of William Chey, MD, Ryan Stidham, MD, and Philip S. Schoenfeld, MD, has flourished and culminated in an oral presentation and several posters for DDW 2017, as well as several first-author manuscripts that have been submitted. Dr. Shah has fully embraced the Gastroenterology fellowship and has far surpassed our high expectations for this position.
 

VIDEO SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

In addition to creating an editorial fellowship, our team has also developed other components within the journal that specifically target trainees and early-career GIs. The Mentoring, Education and Training section – initiated in 2011 through the vision and insight of Bishr Omary MD, PhD, and John Del Valle, MD, at the University of Michigan – has been extremely effective in highlighting critical issues relevant to trainees, young faculty, and early-career GIs. Topics have included mentoring advice not only for individuals in academic or private practice careers but also industry careers and midlevel providers. Other topics have included Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education milestones, career advancement for clinician-educators, sex and ethnic diversity, and maintenance of certification, as well as guidance regarding nontraditional funding mechanisms such as philanthropy. Potential future topics will include information about major new public and private funding initiatives, comments and input from National Institutes of Health officials, and reports of funding trends relevant to both physician scientists and clinicians. We are fortunate to have Prateek Sharma, MD, lead this section, and his depth of experience as an exceptional mentor has provided the requisite expertise.

Additionally, we offer a reduction in page charges to junior investigators (within 7 years of fellowship) who are the corresponding authors of exceedingly important original Gastroenterology manuscripts. These manuscripts from junior investigators will be highlighted in both print and online versions of Gastroenterology. We are using the journal to expand electronic access to educational offerings for new technologies, training, self-assessment, and practice improvement to establish the AGA as the ultimate resource for junior academicians and practicing physicians. We are also currently integrating Gastroenterology more closely into other AGA educational efforts that target young physicians, such as the AGA Education and Training Committee.

At Gastroenterology, we are acutely aware of the needs and obstacles facing trainees, young faculty, and early-career GIs. We have boldly adopted a multidimensional approach to provide guidance and opportunities to overcome these challenges, including the creation of the nascent Editorial Fellowship. We welcome applications for the next fellowship, which will be announced by the AGA in the spring of 2018!
 

Dr. Peek is the Mina Wallace Professor of Medicine, Cancer Biology, and Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, and director, division of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. He has no conflicts of interest.

The readership of Gastroenterology includes a broad distribution of stakeholders in digestive health, including those with vested interests in clinical practice, education, policy, clinical investigation, and basic research. One of our most critical constituencies, however, is trainees and early-career GIs. In an effort to support such individuals, our editorial team has developed a freshly minted 1-year editorial fellowship for Gastroenterology. The overarching purpose of this fellowship is to mentor an outstanding trainee for future editorial leadership roles in scientific publishing, as a means to promote the interests of trainee and early-career GI constituencies within the AGA and Gastroenterology. This fellowship is available to exceptional second- or third-year fellows through an application process. The intent of this training is to allow the selected applicant to become intimately involved with Gastroenterology’s entire editorial process, including peer review, editorial oversight, manuscript selection for publication, production, and postpublication activities. Our first fellow, Eric Shah, MD, MBA, was selected from a highly competitive pool of exceptional applicants, and began his fellowship on July 1, 2017.

AGA Institute

This year, we have been delighted to work with Dr. Shah as our inaugural Gastroenterology fellow. Dr. Shah has a unique background, having pursued a joint MD and MBA (earning both concurrently), while also following venture-oriented interests in developing GI technology from academia. Dr. Shah began his research career under the mentorship of Mark Pimentel, MD, and Gil Melmed, MD, at Cedars-Sinai as part of a Research Honors Program. Since that time, he has focused on evaluating the comparative efficacy, durability, and harm associated with pharmacotherapy in functional bowel disorders. Dr. Shah was accepted into the GI fellowship training program at the University of Michigan and received a slot on the T32 training grant to study cost-effectiveness and qualitative research techniques to address gaps in the care of functional bowel disorders. His work under the mentorship of William Chey, MD, Ryan Stidham, MD, and Philip S. Schoenfeld, MD, has flourished and culminated in an oral presentation and several posters for DDW 2017, as well as several first-author manuscripts that have been submitted. Dr. Shah has fully embraced the Gastroenterology fellowship and has far surpassed our high expectations for this position.
 

VIDEO SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

In addition to creating an editorial fellowship, our team has also developed other components within the journal that specifically target trainees and early-career GIs. The Mentoring, Education and Training section – initiated in 2011 through the vision and insight of Bishr Omary MD, PhD, and John Del Valle, MD, at the University of Michigan – has been extremely effective in highlighting critical issues relevant to trainees, young faculty, and early-career GIs. Topics have included mentoring advice not only for individuals in academic or private practice careers but also industry careers and midlevel providers. Other topics have included Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education milestones, career advancement for clinician-educators, sex and ethnic diversity, and maintenance of certification, as well as guidance regarding nontraditional funding mechanisms such as philanthropy. Potential future topics will include information about major new public and private funding initiatives, comments and input from National Institutes of Health officials, and reports of funding trends relevant to both physician scientists and clinicians. We are fortunate to have Prateek Sharma, MD, lead this section, and his depth of experience as an exceptional mentor has provided the requisite expertise.

Additionally, we offer a reduction in page charges to junior investigators (within 7 years of fellowship) who are the corresponding authors of exceedingly important original Gastroenterology manuscripts. These manuscripts from junior investigators will be highlighted in both print and online versions of Gastroenterology. We are using the journal to expand electronic access to educational offerings for new technologies, training, self-assessment, and practice improvement to establish the AGA as the ultimate resource for junior academicians and practicing physicians. We are also currently integrating Gastroenterology more closely into other AGA educational efforts that target young physicians, such as the AGA Education and Training Committee.

At Gastroenterology, we are acutely aware of the needs and obstacles facing trainees, young faculty, and early-career GIs. We have boldly adopted a multidimensional approach to provide guidance and opportunities to overcome these challenges, including the creation of the nascent Editorial Fellowship. We welcome applications for the next fellowship, which will be announced by the AGA in the spring of 2018!
 

Dr. Peek is the Mina Wallace Professor of Medicine, Cancer Biology, and Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, and director, division of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. He has no conflicts of interest.

ATLANTA – There were a lot of new data presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. But what findings could actually change the way you practice?

Robert A. Brodsky, MD, director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the moderator for the late-breaking abstract session at ASH, highlighted results from two studies.

Data from the MURANO trial showed robust results for a combination of venetoclax and rituximab in patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). At a median follow-up of 23.8 months, median progression-free survival -had not been reached in patients randomized to venetoclax/rituximab, while patients who received bendamustine plus rituximab had a median PFS of 17 months.

The venetoclax/rituximab combination will “probably emerge as a new standard therapy” for refractory CLL based on the data presented, Dr. Brodsky said.

Another “enormously exciting and practice-changing” finding is that direct oral anticoagulants can be used safely in patients with cancer, Dr. Brodsky said in an interview.

In a randomized, open-label study, 12 months of daily treatment with edoxaban was noninferior to standard subcutaneous therapy with dalteparin for treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients.

mschneider@frontlinemedcom.com

ATLANTA – There were a lot of new data presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. But what findings could actually change the way you practice?

Robert A. Brodsky, MD, director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the moderator for the late-breaking abstract session at ASH, highlighted results from two studies.

Data from the MURANO trial showed robust results for a combination of venetoclax and rituximab in patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). At a median follow-up of 23.8 months, median progression-free survival -had not been reached in patients randomized to venetoclax/rituximab, while patients who received bendamustine plus rituximab had a median PFS of 17 months.

The venetoclax/rituximab combination will “probably emerge as a new standard therapy” for refractory CLL based on the data presented, Dr. Brodsky said.

Another “enormously exciting and practice-changing” finding is that direct oral anticoagulants can be used safely in patients with cancer, Dr. Brodsky said in an interview.

In a randomized, open-label study, 12 months of daily treatment with edoxaban was noninferior to standard subcutaneous therapy with dalteparin for treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients.

mschneider@frontlinemedcom.com

ATLANTA – There were a lot of new data presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. But what findings could actually change the way you practice?

Robert A. Brodsky, MD, director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the moderator for the late-breaking abstract session at ASH, highlighted results from two studies.

Data from the MURANO trial showed robust results for a combination of venetoclax and rituximab in patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). At a median follow-up of 23.8 months, median progression-free survival -had not been reached in patients randomized to venetoclax/rituximab, while patients who received bendamustine plus rituximab had a median PFS of 17 months.

The venetoclax/rituximab combination will “probably emerge as a new standard therapy” for refractory CLL based on the data presented, Dr. Brodsky said.

Another “enormously exciting and practice-changing” finding is that direct oral anticoagulants can be used safely in patients with cancer, Dr. Brodsky said in an interview.

In a randomized, open-label study, 12 months of daily treatment with edoxaban was noninferior to standard subcutaneous therapy with dalteparin for treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients.

mschneider@frontlinemedcom.com

LOS ANGELES – When a panel organized by the American Heart Association’s Stroke Council recently revised the group’s guideline for early management of acute ischemic stroke, they were clear on the overarching change they had to make: Incorporate recent evidence collected in two trials that established brain imaging as the way to identify patients eligible for clot removal treatment by thrombectomy, a change in practice that has made this outcome-altering intervention available to more patients.

“The major take-home message [of the new guideline] is the extension of the time window for treating acute ischemic stroke,” said William J. Powers, MD, chair of the guideline group (Stroke. 2018 Jan 24. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000158).

Based on recently reported results from the DAWN (N Engl J Med. 2018;378[1]:11-21) and DEFUSE 3 (N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1713973) trials “we know that there are patients out to 24 hours from their stroke onset who may benefit” from thrombectomy. “This is a major, major change in how we view care for patients with stroke,” Dr. Powers said in a video interview. “Now there’s much more time. Ideally, we’ll see smaller hospitals develop the ability to do the imaging” that makes it possible to select acute ischemic stroke patients eligible for thrombectomy despite a delay of up to 24 hours from their stroke onset to the time of thrombectomy, said Dr. Powers, professor and chair of neurology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

The big priority for the stroke community now that this major change in patient selection was incorporated into a U.S. practice guideline will be acting quickly to implement the steps needed to make this change happen, Dr. Powers and others said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Powers and Dr. Furie had no disclosures. Dr. Saver has received research support and personal fees from Medtronic-Abbott and Neuravia.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

LOS ANGELES – When a panel organized by the American Heart Association’s Stroke Council recently revised the group’s guideline for early management of acute ischemic stroke, they were clear on the overarching change they had to make: Incorporate recent evidence collected in two trials that established brain imaging as the way to identify patients eligible for clot removal treatment by thrombectomy, a change in practice that has made this outcome-altering intervention available to more patients.

“The major take-home message [of the new guideline] is the extension of the time window for treating acute ischemic stroke,” said William J. Powers, MD, chair of the guideline group (Stroke. 2018 Jan 24. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000158).

Based on recently reported results from the DAWN (N Engl J Med. 2018;378[1]:11-21) and DEFUSE 3 (N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1713973) trials “we know that there are patients out to 24 hours from their stroke onset who may benefit” from thrombectomy. “This is a major, major change in how we view care for patients with stroke,” Dr. Powers said in a video interview. “Now there’s much more time. Ideally, we’ll see smaller hospitals develop the ability to do the imaging” that makes it possible to select acute ischemic stroke patients eligible for thrombectomy despite a delay of up to 24 hours from their stroke onset to the time of thrombectomy, said Dr. Powers, professor and chair of neurology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

The big priority for the stroke community now that this major change in patient selection was incorporated into a U.S. practice guideline will be acting quickly to implement the steps needed to make this change happen, Dr. Powers and others said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Powers and Dr. Furie had no disclosures. Dr. Saver has received research support and personal fees from Medtronic-Abbott and Neuravia.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

LOS ANGELES – When a panel organized by the American Heart Association’s Stroke Council recently revised the group’s guideline for early management of acute ischemic stroke, they were clear on the overarching change they had to make: Incorporate recent evidence collected in two trials that established brain imaging as the way to identify patients eligible for clot removal treatment by thrombectomy, a change in practice that has made this outcome-altering intervention available to more patients.

“The major take-home message [of the new guideline] is the extension of the time window for treating acute ischemic stroke,” said William J. Powers, MD, chair of the guideline group (Stroke. 2018 Jan 24. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000158).

Based on recently reported results from the DAWN (N Engl J Med. 2018;378[1]:11-21) and DEFUSE 3 (N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1713973) trials “we know that there are patients out to 24 hours from their stroke onset who may benefit” from thrombectomy. “This is a major, major change in how we view care for patients with stroke,” Dr. Powers said in a video interview. “Now there’s much more time. Ideally, we’ll see smaller hospitals develop the ability to do the imaging” that makes it possible to select acute ischemic stroke patients eligible for thrombectomy despite a delay of up to 24 hours from their stroke onset to the time of thrombectomy, said Dr. Powers, professor and chair of neurology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

The big priority for the stroke community now that this major change in patient selection was incorporated into a U.S. practice guideline will be acting quickly to implement the steps needed to make this change happen, Dr. Powers and others said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Powers and Dr. Furie had no disclosures. Dr. Saver has received research support and personal fees from Medtronic-Abbott and Neuravia.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

Access ACOG/SMFM algorithm for treatment of pregnant women with flu-like illness

Access ACOG/SMFM algorithm for treatment of pregnant women with flu-like illness

Access ACOG/SMFM algorithm for treatment of pregnant women with flu-like illness

This video was filmed at Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit (MEDS). Click here to learn more.

This video was filmed at Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit (MEDS). Click here to learn more.

This video was filmed at Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit (MEDS). Click here to learn more.

ORLANDO – A high fraction of U.S. patients with atrial fibrillation receive an inappropriately low dosage of an anticoagulant for stroke prevention, often in a misguided attempt to avoid potential bleeding complications.

When physicians “reduce the dose to prevent a bleed they increase the risk for an ischemic stroke,” Elaine M. Hylek, MD, said in a video interview during the annual International AF Symposium.

Recent data on actual anticoagulant dosages prescribed to U.S. patients with atrial fibrillation show that “an unexpectedly high proportion of prescriptions for apixaban (Eliquis), dabigatran (Pradaxa), and rivaroxaban (Xarelto) are given at lower doses,” Dr. Hylek noted at the meeting. The lower-dose formulations with U.S. marketing are only appropriate for patients on apixaban with at least two of the following: serum creatinine 1.5 mg/dL or higher, age 80 years or older, and weight 60 kg or less; patients on dabigatran with moderate renal impairment or treated with dronedarone or systemic ketoconazole; or patients on rivaroxaban with a creatinine clearance of 15-50 mL/min.

For example, in the pivotal trial for apixaban only 5% of atrial fibrillation patients qualified for the lower dosage, yet recent data have shown that, in actual U.S. practice roughly a quarter of patients were on this lower dosage, said Dr. Hylek, professor of medicine at Boston University and director of the thrombosis and anticoagulation service at Boston Medical Center (Curr Med Res Opin. 2016 July;32[7]:1277-79). A second recent report showed that among U.S. patients with atrial fibrillation hospitalized for an ischemic stroke 84% had received inadequate anticoagulation with either subtherapeutic dosages of anticoagulant or no anticoagulant at all (JAMA. 2017 Mar 14;317[10]:1057-67).

Another manifestation of the underprescribing problem are patients with atrial fibrillation treated with aspirin only, an approach proven ineffective for preventing ischemic strokes in these patients, Dr. Hylek said.

Dr. Hylek has been an advisor to or has received honoraria from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Doasense, Janssen, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Portola, and she has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Janssen.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler
 

ORLANDO – A high fraction of U.S. patients with atrial fibrillation receive an inappropriately low dosage of an anticoagulant for stroke prevention, often in a misguided attempt to avoid potential bleeding complications.

When physicians “reduce the dose to prevent a bleed they increase the risk for an ischemic stroke,” Elaine M. Hylek, MD, said in a video interview during the annual International AF Symposium.

Recent data on actual anticoagulant dosages prescribed to U.S. patients with atrial fibrillation show that “an unexpectedly high proportion of prescriptions for apixaban (Eliquis), dabigatran (Pradaxa), and rivaroxaban (Xarelto) are given at lower doses,” Dr. Hylek noted at the meeting. The lower-dose formulations with U.S. marketing are only appropriate for patients on apixaban with at least two of the following: serum creatinine 1.5 mg/dL or higher, age 80 years or older, and weight 60 kg or less; patients on dabigatran with moderate renal impairment or treated with dronedarone or systemic ketoconazole; or patients on rivaroxaban with a creatinine clearance of 15-50 mL/min.

For example, in the pivotal trial for apixaban only 5% of atrial fibrillation patients qualified for the lower dosage, yet recent data have shown that, in actual U.S. practice roughly a quarter of patients were on this lower dosage, said Dr. Hylek, professor of medicine at Boston University and director of the thrombosis and anticoagulation service at Boston Medical Center (Curr Med Res Opin. 2016 July;32[7]:1277-79). A second recent report showed that among U.S. patients with atrial fibrillation hospitalized for an ischemic stroke 84% had received inadequate anticoagulation with either subtherapeutic dosages of anticoagulant or no anticoagulant at all (JAMA. 2017 Mar 14;317[10]:1057-67).

Another manifestation of the underprescribing problem are patients with atrial fibrillation treated with aspirin only, an approach proven ineffective for preventing ischemic strokes in these patients, Dr. Hylek said.

Dr. Hylek has been an advisor to or has received honoraria from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Doasense, Janssen, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Portola, and she has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Janssen.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler
 

ORLANDO – A high fraction of U.S. patients with atrial fibrillation receive an inappropriately low dosage of an anticoagulant for stroke prevention, often in a misguided attempt to avoid potential bleeding complications.

When physicians “reduce the dose to prevent a bleed they increase the risk for an ischemic stroke,” Elaine M. Hylek, MD, said in a video interview during the annual International AF Symposium.

Recent data on actual anticoagulant dosages prescribed to U.S. patients with atrial fibrillation show that “an unexpectedly high proportion of prescriptions for apixaban (Eliquis), dabigatran (Pradaxa), and rivaroxaban (Xarelto) are given at lower doses,” Dr. Hylek noted at the meeting. The lower-dose formulations with U.S. marketing are only appropriate for patients on apixaban with at least two of the following: serum creatinine 1.5 mg/dL or higher, age 80 years or older, and weight 60 kg or less; patients on dabigatran with moderate renal impairment or treated with dronedarone or systemic ketoconazole; or patients on rivaroxaban with a creatinine clearance of 15-50 mL/min.

For example, in the pivotal trial for apixaban only 5% of atrial fibrillation patients qualified for the lower dosage, yet recent data have shown that, in actual U.S. practice roughly a quarter of patients were on this lower dosage, said Dr. Hylek, professor of medicine at Boston University and director of the thrombosis and anticoagulation service at Boston Medical Center (Curr Med Res Opin. 2016 July;32[7]:1277-79). A second recent report showed that among U.S. patients with atrial fibrillation hospitalized for an ischemic stroke 84% had received inadequate anticoagulation with either subtherapeutic dosages of anticoagulant or no anticoagulant at all (JAMA. 2017 Mar 14;317[10]:1057-67).

Another manifestation of the underprescribing problem are patients with atrial fibrillation treated with aspirin only, an approach proven ineffective for preventing ischemic strokes in these patients, Dr. Hylek said.

Dr. Hylek has been an advisor to or has received honoraria from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Doasense, Janssen, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Portola, and she has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Janssen.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler
 

This video was filmed at Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit (MEDS). Click here to learn more.

This video was filmed at Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit (MEDS). Click here to learn more.

This video was filmed at Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit (MEDS). Click here to learn more.

Citation: Heazell HE, et al. Association between maternal sleep practices and late stillbirth – findings from a stillbirth case-control study. Published online November 20, 2017. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.14967.

Citation: Heazell HE, et al. Association between maternal sleep practices and late stillbirth – findings from a stillbirth case-control study. Published online November 20, 2017. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.14967.

Citation: Heazell HE, et al. Association between maternal sleep practices and late stillbirth – findings from a stillbirth case-control study. Published online November 20, 2017. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.14967.