World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther. 2016 May 06;7(2):334-42. doi: 10.4292/wjgpt.v7.i2.334.

Review of efficacy and safety of laxatives use in geriatrics.

World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics

Manhal Izzy, Anju Malieckal, Erin Little, Sury Anand

PMID: 27158549 PMCID: PMC4848256 DOI: 10.4292/wjgpt.v7.i2.334

Abstract

AIM: To study the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatment of constipation in geriatrics.

METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, google scholar, and Ovid were searched to identify human studies performed on the use of laxatives in elderly with constipation, which were conducted between January 1990 and January 2013 using the specified keywords. Controlled studies that enrolled geriatric patients with a diagnosis of constipation and addressed the efficacy and/or the safety of pharmacological treatments were included. Studies were excluded from this review if they were non-controlled trials, case series, or case reports.

RESULTS: Out of twenty three studies we initially retrieved in our search, only nine studies met the eligibility criteria of being controlled trials within geriatrics. The laxatives examined in the nine studies were senna, lactulose, sorbital, polyethylene glycol (PEG), lubiprostone, linaclotide, and prucalopride. In those studies, senna combinations had a higher efficacy than sorbitol or lactulose as well as, a very good adverse effect profile. PEG was also shown to be safe and effective in geriatric population. Furthermore, it has been shown that PEG is as safe in geriatrics as in general population. New agents like lubiprostone and prucalopride show promising results but the data about these agents in geriatrics are still limited which warrants further investigation.

CONCLUSION: Senna combinations and PEG appear to have a more favorable profile over the other traditionally used laxatives in elderly patients with constipation.

Keywords: Chronic constipation; Elderly; Laxatives; Linaclotide; Lubiprostone; Prucalopride

References

1. BMJ. 1993 Sep 25;307(6907):769-71 - PubMed
2. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2010 Jun;45(6):645-64 - PubMed
3. Am J Med. 1990 Nov;89(5):597-601 - PubMed
4. J Clin Invest. 1971 Aug;50(8):1569-77 - PubMed
5. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2009 Dec;21(12):1256-e117 - PubMed
6. Pharmacology. 1993 Oct;47 Suppl 1:253-5 - PubMed
7. Gastroenterology. 2010 Nov;139(5):1549-58, 1558.e1 - PubMed
8. CMAJ. 2013 May 14;185(8):663-70 - PubMed
9. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2010 Mar;25(3):389-94 - PubMed
10. Gut. 1984 Dec;25(12):1358-63 - PubMed
11. Gastroenterology. 2013 Jan;144(1):211-7 - PubMed
12. Gastroenterology. 2006 Apr;130(5):1377-90 - PubMed
13. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011 Dec;106(12):2154-64 - PubMed
14. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007 Jul;102(7):1436-41 - PubMed
15. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2015 May-Jun;60(3):418-24 - PubMed
16. Gut. 2000 Apr;46(4):522-6 - PubMed
17. Clin Interv Aging. 2008;3(2):357-64 - PubMed
18. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1990 Aug;12(4):405-8 - PubMed
19. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2013 Feb;22(2):277-84 - PubMed
20. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2009 Sep;38(3):463-80 - PubMed
21. Gastroenterology. 2010 Mar;138(3):886-95.e1 - PubMed
22. Dig Dis Sci. 1989 Feb;34(2):214-9 - PubMed
23. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1988 Dec;40(12):882-4 - PubMed
24. J Clin Invest. 1997 Sep 15;100(6):1590-5 - PubMed
25. Drugs. 1981 Feb;21(2):90-119 - PubMed
26. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2010 Sep;22(9):991-8, e255 - PubMed
27. Drugs Aging. 2009;26(8):703-13 - PubMed
28. Clin Interv Aging. 2010 Aug 09;5:163-71 - PubMed
29. Lancet. 1974 Aug 3;2(7875):253-7 - PubMed
30. Clin Geriatr Med. 2007 Nov;23(4):721-34, v - PubMed

Publication Types

• Journal Article