In the management of constipation, a common and often challenging condition, healthcare professionals have a wide array of pharmaceutical tools at their disposal. Among these, Daiokanzoto (DKT) and Lubiprostone (LPS) are noteworthy. A recent retrospective cohort study conducted by a team at Ogaki Municipal Hospital in Japan has provided new insights into the effectiveness, safety, and medical economic efficiency of these two treatments. Published in the “Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin,” the study offers a comparative analysis that could significantly influence the decision-making process of clinicians and patients alike.
Constipation can dramatically impact the quality of life, and addressing it effectively is not merely a matter of comfort but also would contribute to the overall health and well-being of individuals. As such, the findings of this study, identified by DOI: 10.1248/bpb.b18-00532, are particularly relevant.
The study involved patients who were admitted to Ogaki Municipal Hospital between November 2012 and May 2016. They were divided into two groups: those who received DKT and those treated with LPS. The primary metric for assessing the efficacy of these drugs was the change in the median value of bowel movement frequency before and after a week of treatment. Safety was also factored into the evaluation, with the study tracking adverse events such as diarrhea, abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting.
According to the published results, the DKT treatment led to a significantly higher median bowel movement frequency of 8.5 times per week post-treatment, compared to 5 times in the LPS group. Importantly, this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.01). This pronounced effect points to a potential benefit for patients who struggle with the implications of constipation, suggesting that DKT may offer considerable relief.
In terms of adverse events, diarrhea, which is a common and sometimes severe byproduct of laxative use, occurred significantly less in the DKT group. Only four cases were reported among DKT users, whereas the LPS group saw seventeen cases. The reduction in such adverse events suggests that DKT could offer a more tolerable therapeutic option, which is a vital consideration in long-term management strategies.
From a medical economic efficiency perspective, the cost of managing constipation with medication over the week was markedly lower for DKT at 631 yen (with a quartile range of 513-653 yen) as opposed to the significantly higher price tag of 1431 yen (quartile range 1135-2344 yen) for the LPS group (p < 0.01). Such a cost disparity highlights DKT as not only a clinically effective option but also a financially viable one, which is crucial in the context of healthcare where budget constraints are of constant concern.
The authors of the study, led by Yoshida Aya A and her colleagues at both the Department of Pharmacy, Ogaki Municipal Hospital, and the Laboratory of Pharmacy Practice and Social Science at Gifu Pharmaceutical University, advocate for the consideration of DKT in constipation management based on their findings. Their research signifies a potential shift in preference that could be on the horizon for medical professionals who treat this condition.
Given the importance of their findings, this study warrants further attention and could indeed prompt additional clinical trials or retrospective analyses to consolidate the evidence base for DKT versus LPS in constipation treatment.
For those seeking to delve into the details of this comparative study, the article can be accessed through the DOI link provided above. Additionally, the full list of authors and their affiliations are given credit for the contribution to this important body of work.
As the medical community continues to explore and optimize treatment options for constipation, the insights gained from such research play a critical role in improving patient care. While it is essential to personalize treatments based on individual patient needs, the knowledge derived from these outcomes will undoubtedly form a cornerstone of evidence-based practice.
References
1. Yoshida Aya A, Hirose Tatsuya T, et al. (2019). Evaluation and Comparison of Daiokanzoto and Lubiprostone for Constipation: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 42(5), 680-684. DOI: 10.1248/bpb.b18-00532.
2. Camilleri M. (2007). Lubiprostone for the treatment of chronic constipation. Expert Opin Pharmacother, 8(17), 2981-2987.
3. Bharucha AE, Pemberton JH, & Locke GR 3rd. (2013). American Gastroenterological Association technical review on constipation. Gastroenterology, 144(1), 218-238.
4. Tack J, Müller-Lissner S, et al. (2012). Diagnosis and treatment of chronic constipation – a European perspective. Neurogastroenterol Motil, 24(8), 697-710.
5. Lacy BE, Mearin F, et al. (2021). Bowel Disorders. Gastroenterology. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.01.032.
Keywords
1. DKT constipation treatment
2. Lubiprostone comparison
3. Cost-effective constipation relief
4. Bowel movement frequency increase
5. Gastrointestinal drug safety